Hi All, I would like to echo Gregg's sentiments. I am of like mind with regard to finding a path forward, away from discord and toward consensus/synthesis. Kuhn (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions) said that a change in the language marks a paradigm shift (paraphrasing). Of course the philosophy has to drive the change in language, and if we can disabuse folks of the notion that information = knowledge I think we'd be a lot farther ahead in our efforts. I am reminded of the on-going discussion about the value of higher education in this country, revolving around income, with no mention of the opportunity to become an autodidact, motivated by self-learning, much like what we on this 'list' are trying to accomplish. Happy Holiday and Peace, John Torday On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 7:05 AM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx < [log in to unmask]> wrote: > Hi All, > > > > I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank everyone for chiming in, > and welcome others to do the same. I will be traveling and visiting with > family over the holiday, as I know many of you will be also. So, this is a > great time for introductions and the process of starting to build a > community. And let’s also be aware that this is a time for family and > connections, so perhaps it will be a little slow, which is fine. > > > > I would like to make a general comment here, as we see all the > interesting perspectives and experiences raised by folks in their opening > comments. The goal of this list is to think about the perspective of a > “big” TOK. Let’s note that the 18th Century gave us the Enlightenment > ideal that science and reason could reveal the objective truth. The 19th > Century carried that into industry and we had a merger of science and > technology and power. The 20th Century gave us ever greater increases in > technology and power, but something different happened at the level of > knowledge. General relativity and quantum mechanics cracked open the Newton > matter and motion model. Then we saw movement like eugenics and Lysenkoism > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Lysenkoism&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=whzjhM52FAKPlklL0dfmPyl1VTYukF-VmnokWBSPUZM&s=B8o6nhUCCloz56V5-lR7Y7hfYNS1n3GnIexQVHf12PA&e= > emerge in which power and > knowledge combined in very dangerous ways. We also had WWII and the atomic > bomb. These developments shook the dream, rightfully so. By the 1960s, > confidence in science’s ability to lead us to the promise land was > understandably shattered. This culminates in post modernism—the position > that there is no objective truth, only social agreement and power. > > > > While postmodernism was a needed correction against naïve Enlightenment > modernism, it also is the case that it leaves us with a fragmented > pluralism view of knowledge. It ultimately returns it to a “pre-modern > state”. It was, of course, Socrates’ great insight that there is a > fundamental difference between *conventional know-how *(i.e., social > agreement and power), and deeply *knowing that something is true and > being able to show that truth *(i.e., mathematical and scientific truths > that were true regardless of what anyone believed). > > > > I suggest the time is right to swing the pendulum back from > postmodernism to a more “integrated pluralism” approach to knowledge. I > hope there will always be pluralism. It is necessary for freedom and the > full maturation of our consciousness. But we do need an anchor. We need a > way to reference some notion of “the truth”. It is absurd to say that one > social group believes the earth is flat and 6000 years old, another > believes it is (almost) a sphere and 4.5 billion years old, and have that > be the end of it. We can clearly go farther and say the former are simply > inaccurate beliefs, whereas the latter are accurate. Power has nothing to > do with it. There are accurate and inaccurate statements of fact, despite > politicians claims of “alternate facts”. > > > > So, my question is, is there some way to achieve an integrated > pluralism? It there a *common language game and picture of reality *that > allows us to talk meaningfully about what we know? Post modernism, do in no > small part to Wittgenstein’s conflicts, argues that such a view is > impossible. I also ask folks to look at the global state of knowledge. Is > it not obvious that we are profoundly confused and lacking in wisdom, > certainly in the US and our political identity? > > > > I hope we can achieve consensus that postmodern relativism is not a > workable conclusion, and that we believe there is a way to get our picture > of reality right and to align it with a language game that sets the stage > for human flourishing. Speaking of that, let’s raise a glass to the > holidays and look forward to a new productive year, where we explore the > possibility of harmonizing our various versions of reality into a more > integrated pluralism. > > > Best, > > Gregg > > > > > > *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion [mailto:TOK-SOCIETY-L@ > listserv.jmu.edu] *On Behalf Of *Stout, Jason (DBHDS) > *Sent:* Thursday, December 21, 2017 8:24 AM > > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: Welcome to Theory of Knowledge! > > > > Hi All, > > > > Just wanted to say hi, and thanks for the invite to this on-going > discussion. Like Chance, I’m also a former advisee of Gregg through the > JMU PsyD program. I’m mostly a clinical guy, working in a state > psychiatric hospital for adults, which I believe gives me the unique > perspective of routinely seeing the human condition at its extremes. My > dissertation work focused on analyzing Gregg’s TOK system as a candidate > for the **then** newly-proposed unified clinical science in psychology. > I’m well versed in his theory, but look forward to hearing the other unique > perspectives you all have. I enjoy doing a layman’s review of string > theory and quantum gravity from time-to-time and have been particularly > intrigued by the efforts of both physics and biology to form their own > unified theories. > > > > All the best, > > > > Jason > > > > ----------------------------------- > > *Jason C. Stout, Psy.D.* > > Licensed Clinical Psychologist > > Western State Hospital - 1 Pine > > (540) 332-8095 (Office) > > (540) 332-8202 (Fax) > > > > *DBHDS**:* *A life of possibilities for all Virginians* > > > > *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion [mailto:TOK-SOCIETY-L@ > listserv.jmu.edu <[log in to unmask]>] *On Behalf Of *Chance > McDermott > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 20, 2017 7:23 PM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: Welcome to Theory of Knowledge! > > > > Hi TOK Society! > > > > My name is Chance, a recent PsyD graduate and advisee of Gregg's. I am > thrilled to be a part of these discussions. My input is informed by a > life-long interest in lucid dreaming and, hence, a fascination with the > fundamental question, "What is really going on here?" In fact, one of my > access-points to Gregg's Unified Theory of Psychology was recognizing that > his models could be used to assimilate and organize the sprawling > literature on dreaming, and this became the focus of my dissertation. As I > progressed with the project, I was delighted to recognize the > bi-directional and reciprocal relationship between the accelerated > deepening of my own phenomenological experience, my understanding of the > literature, and my understanding of Gregg's UT. So from my own journey, I > have found the UT to be a powerful explanatory system in and of itself, and > also a useful tool-kit for efficiently extracting meaning from other > perspectives and texts. > > > > I have also found the Justification Hypothesis to be immensely helpful as > a frame for understanding and communicating to others what is going with > the global collision of beliefs and values. "Factoring out" the human > language game of the justification mechanism, I believe, will be key to any > grand theories or solutions to the larger dynamic of *how *we all will > exist together in the cyberspace tribal landscape that John Torday alluded > to. > > > > I am excited by mentions of "getting out of boxes" and managing self-other > self-other "freedom," and look forward to the dialogue! > > > > -Chance > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 7:25 AM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx < > [log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Hello List, > > > > It is the opening day of Theory of Knowledge. Welcome! I anticipate many > cool discussions will follow. I am happy to report that we have almost > thirty participants, with a pretty wide range of disciplines represented. I > welcome folks to introduce themselves. Although there are too many for me > to name here, I would like to mention a few folks who are on the list and > whose work I find to be especially inspiring. > > > > Dr. Joe Michalski > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.kings.uwo.ca_academics_sociology_people_dr-2Djoseph-2Dmichalski_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=IDXcXF_ebHASoCKZJ0mdvDrIPTFZ1W5wX5PwFSUN38I&s=WSC8m0du9eG_ONZWGWxwqw9sD0r-IUfuEE9Oqb_C3ak&e=> > is a sociologist and Associate Dean at King’s college and has an excellent > vision for extending some of these ideas to social structures and the > social world. Joe was my first true mentor, as he was a professor here at > JMU when I was an undergraduate back in the 1980s. Dr. Frank Ambrosio > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__blogs.commons.georgetown.edu_francisjambrosio_profile_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=IDXcXF_ebHASoCKZJ0mdvDrIPTFZ1W5wX5PwFSUN38I&s=Yz1UD1EMPWhE6Pr9XYc0GXrESryAtfBOZWf78SlvSIk&e=>is > a philosopher at Georgetown who, IMO, has a brilliant conception of our > society’s crisis of meaning making, for which he offers up the concept of > “mystery” as a possible resolution going forward. Dr. Steve Quackenbush > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.umf.maine.edu_majors-2Dacademics_psychology_faculty_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=IDXcXF_ebHASoCKZJ0mdvDrIPTFZ1W5wX5PwFSUN38I&s=mmrad841C5fnHIh9cPlZCXVdlhJ_tnjld0_Be2HbqB8&e=> > is a social/personality psychologist who specializes in philosophical > psychology, especial Sartre. He has been interested in the ToK System for > quite some time and, I am thrilled to say, has been doing a “deep dive” > into the iQuad formulation, which I hope we find time to discuss. Dr. > Gary Brill > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__psych.rutgers.edu_faculty-2Dprofiles-2Da-2Dcontacts_132-2Dgary-2Dbrill&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=IDXcXF_ebHASoCKZJ0mdvDrIPTFZ1W5wX5PwFSUN38I&s=06dOjx6sGLfJfuA_U2dcbQLB4nr5XRMeI-keKXZSnx8&e=> > is a psychologist at Rutgers who also specializes in theoretical and > philosophical issues. He has a fascinating “View From Humanity” that I > think has much to offer. Dr. Waldemar Schmidt is an emeritus professor of > pathophysiology who has a deep understanding of--and is working on a new > model of--human psychopathology. Dr. Steve Goldman > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Steven-5FL.-5FGoldman&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=IDXcXF_ebHASoCKZJ0mdvDrIPTFZ1W5wX5PwFSUN38I&s=_6uOoWxaFcbGKG1jfTpHtEef-Nk_TvOoQ86X1VPvQjA&e=> > is a distinguished professor of philosophy at Lehigh University. I have > taken two of his “Great Courses” (Science Wars; Great Scientific Ideas that > Changed the World) in my car, both of which deeply impacted my big > picture/historical view of science and philosophy. Dr. Blaine Fowers > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__blainefowers.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=IDXcXF_ebHASoCKZJ0mdvDrIPTFZ1W5wX5PwFSUN38I&s=87AH8JqMVp2AjUG0Gv5pixFFey5mxHY9QSs2H8y0vr8&e=> > is a professor of psychology at the University of Miami, who specializes in > Aristotle and how virtue ethics applies to psychology. (Check out my > review of his excellent book, the evolution of ethics, here > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_201602_powerful-2Dnew-2Dvision-2Dbridging-2Dscience-2Dand-2Dmorality&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=IDXcXF_ebHASoCKZJ0mdvDrIPTFZ1W5wX5PwFSUN38I&s=ys0RIbjOMBgfuIhhhPZBMcy6mwZCPPwo4GOm0QbqMqI&e=>). > Professor Corinne Diop > <https://www.jmu.edu/artandarthistory/faculty-and-staff/faculty/diop-corinne.shtml> > is the director of the New Image Art Gallery and several years ago did some > artwork with elements of the ToK. Dr. Darcia Narvaez > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_experts_darcia-2Dnarvaez-2Dphd&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=IDXcXF_ebHASoCKZJ0mdvDrIPTFZ1W5wX5PwFSUN38I&s=bRCL1yGsl3bWbTBxEOKyrzH-TCKnG8b-A46RWJWq7xE&e=> > is professor of developmental psychology at the University of Notre Dame. I > invited her to give the key note at the most recent Division 24 > (Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology) conference because she has one > of the most comprehensive, incisive, innovative, and powerful views on > human moral development I have encountered. Dr. Craig Shealy > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ibavi.org_content_craig-2Dn-2Dshealy-2Dphd&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=IDXcXF_ebHASoCKZJ0mdvDrIPTFZ1W5wX5PwFSUN38I&s=jhO9T5x-6a6gEy4fHrX7lE-eYTOQE3oeDBXI-pmsKsA&e=> > is a professor in my home program at JMU, is President of Div 52 > (International Psychology) and has a brilliant conception of human beliefs > and values, human needs, and the nature of the self. And, the individual > who I have been spending the most time exchanging ideas with over the past > three weeks, Dr. John Torday > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.eeb.ucla.edu_evmed_indivfaculty.php-3Ff-3Dtorday&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=IDXcXF_ebHASoCKZJ0mdvDrIPTFZ1W5wX5PwFSUN38I&s=aKnSg9ISo2QHp4jAxOHiguT3jryiVmvhkaiK_E9Qwmk&e=>, > who is a professor of evolutionary medicine at UCLA. He has a potentially > revolutionary idea about “first principles of physiology” that connects > biology into physics and back into human consciousness and morality in a > groundbreaking way. > > > > These are just some of the folks who are engaged in this conversation. As > this summary suggests, it is quite an interdisciplinary group, albeit with > a focus on the intersection of philosophy and psychology. I would also like > to note that there are a number of current and former students of mine on > this list. Many of these folks are deeply interested in the practical > application of these ideas; that is, what relevance do these ideas have for > human suffering, current mental health, and the role and identity of health > service psychologists going forward. I hope we remain attuned to these > issues and “real world” implications. > > > > Below is the introductory note I shared with most of you in the past two > days. To post to the list, either reply to this note or send to > [log in to unmask] If you would like to be removed at any > time, you can send me a note at [log in to unmask] > > > > At this point, I welcome additional introductions, comments, criticisms or > questions. Let’s let the *Theory of Knowledge* conversation take us where > it will! > > > > Best, > Gregg > > > > >>> > > Dear List, > > > > The overarching goal of this list is to spark a discussion about modern > theories of knowledge in general and the Tree of Knowledge/UTUA Framework > in particular. A key question that contextualizes this discussion is > whether the time is right for a new way to approach developing a “Theory Of > Knowledge”, and whether the ToK/UTUA system helps with this and explore > other systems that may also work toward this goal. (Note: For communication > purposes, I will be referring to *Theory Of Knowledge as TOK*; whereas > the * Tree of Knowledge System will be denoted ‘ToK’ System*; thus the > former is marked by a capital O and the latter a lowercase o. Also, Theory > of Knowledge is the title of my blog on Psychology Today). > > > > Let us start by getting clear about what is meant by a TOK. Folks may > want to check out this blog, which offers a brief primer on knowledge > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_201312_what-2Dis-2Dknowledge-2Dbrief-2Dprimer&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=IDXcXF_ebHASoCKZJ0mdvDrIPTFZ1W5wX5PwFSUN38I&s=yKBP_zDomlG4NMKMb2_Ioit__vkXhWJQ1ufKiBhOH-0&e=>. > Traditionally, theories of knowledge emphasize one of two large components. > The first and most common meaning of TOK is the “epistemological” meaning. > This refers to the conception that “knowledge” should be conceptualized as > “justified true beliefs” (JTB). That is, beliefs that were both true and > justified were considered as knowledge. For many, many years, this was > considered a very strong position > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__plato.stanford.edu_entries_knowledge-2Danalysis_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=IDXcXF_ebHASoCKZJ0mdvDrIPTFZ1W5wX5PwFSUN38I&s=milo-jfoL9yF2i9Q_6WLCt3d61Eo1mpgckW8gfgfOWE&e=>. > But, as philosophers know, an analysis by Gettier, showed why traditional > JTB frames did not always hold. Although I agree that the work by Gettier > and others was successful in weakening the JTB approach, it still remains > the case that we do well to consider knowledge as having these three > components, that is, knowledge is made up of (1) the truth (the actual > state of affairs); (2) beliefs (which correspond or represent the state of > affairs) and (3) justification, which refers to the legitimacy, depth, > logic, coherence, sophistication of the beliefs and the relationship > between them and the truth (i.e., was the individual justified in forming > the beliefs about the true state of affairs). > > > > The second meaning or component of a (big) TOK refers to the > metaphysical and ontological meaning. This refers to one’s map or beliefs > or claims about the “Beingness” of the universe. It is the question of what > is the “Truth” of the universe and it also must deal with the question of > how we humans (or any knower in general) comes to know about the truth of > the universe. The field of Big History is a good example of a big picture > view of the universe that offers an ontology of the universe as existing on > the dimensions of time and complexity > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__school.bighistoryproject.com_bhplive&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=IDXcXF_ebHASoCKZJ0mdvDrIPTFZ1W5wX5PwFSUN38I&s=c3lmBV3xWxpHoDHKrf_3K5GU8ogW7sSLpqDUtfUZjhk&e=>. > It is worth noting that this effort was spear headed by a historian, and > not a philosopher. > > > > So, according to this breakdown, we are tackling issues of knowledge, > which lines up the traditional emphases in epistemology (i.e., how we > know), and the nature of “Truth” or “Beingness,” which lines up with > metaphysics and ontology (what reality is made of and how it works). Given > this frame, it follows that a complete and completely true TOK would be a > system of belief that is completely justified in its map of all “Beingness” > (i.e., the entire universe of existence). When we put it this way, we can > see that this is just a fantasy. Given the vast vastness of the universe, > no human will ever have complete knowledge of it. But this tells us what > the ingredients are made up of; and I do believe we can move toward better > and better TOKs. This fact is captured in a saying by my dear friend and > colleague Craig Shealy, which is that “We are all full of shit, but just to > different degrees and different degrees of awareness”. By working together > we can be “less full of shit” and more aware of what is bullshit and what > we cling to out of needs and our own limitations as humans. > > > > The famous (and rebellious) physicist David Bohm developed a map of the > universe that has much overlap with this framing in his 1980 book, *Wholeness > and the Implicate Order*, where he makes a distinction between the > “explicate order,” which is everyday common sense, and the “implicate > order,” which is the “true state of Beingness.” He discusses first that we > (science and philosophy and the academy) are completely lacking an adequate > worldview, but he argues that it is necessary if we ever are to try and > approach an adequate picture of the implicate order (i.e., stripping > ourselves of our biases and distortions and seeing the universe for what it > is to the best of our human ability). I think it is worth noting here that > Buddhism, too, makes a similar distinction, when it emphasizes the > difference between “conventional reality” and “emptiness.” I hope that our > list will have some discussions on the nature and relationship between the > “implicate” and the “explicate.” > > > > For the purposes of this introduction, I want to bring the discussion to a > head by pointing out that, in the 20th Century, philosophers largely gave > up the task of developing a full scale TOK. There are many reasons for > this. Perhaps the single biggest is the work of Ludwig Wittgenstein. > Knowing about Wittgenstein is a good starting point for us. He was not a > fan of large-scale TOKs; it is one thing that is shared across his > different positions on philosophy. As philosophers know, Wittgenstein had > two main phases, early and late. His early work focused on the problem of > truth in language. He argued that we should think language as corresponding > to a “picture” of reality (what was called his “picture theory of > meaning”). He thought the job of philosophy was to determine if people were > making sense by examining the logical and corresponding relations between > statements of fact. His book, Tractatus (1921), was hugely influential. And > it set the stage the Vienna circle and their “logical empiricist” approach, > in which the science is about statements that are logically consistent and > empirically true. > > > > Later in his life, Wittgenstein changed his mind regarding the nature of > language and truth. Instead of thinking that language either conveyed sense > or nonsense as his early work suggested, he came to see language as being > much more practical, context dependent, and worked very much like a tool to > get things done. His later work, Philosophical Investigations (1953), > details his argument that we should think about knowledge systems as > “language games.” This was not meant to be flippant, but rather emphasized > that language emerged in an embedded social, historical, ecological > context, and people generate language as tools to operate in the world > toward goals. All of these factors were akin to shared rules of a game that > the participants understood when they were “speaking each other’s > language.” This philosophy of language shifted the nature of knowledge to > being much more context dependent and framed by the intersubjective > meanings of the actors. > > > > I have briefly reviewed Wittgenstein’s thinking here for a couple of > reasons. First, I want to point out to folks on this list that > Wittgenstein’s thought has been hugely influential. His rejection of even > possibly developing a large-scale, workable TOK is reflective of the > zeitgeist in philosophy in the 20th Century. That is, very few philosophers > have been advocating for a grand vision of philosophy that seeks a complete > TOK. It is seen by many now as a fool’s errand. > > > > It is also the case that Wittgenstein straddled and indeed directly > contributed to the split in our approaches to epistemology and the nature > of truth; that is the split between modernism and post-modernism. Early > Wittgenstein represents a hyper-modernist view of truth and the > Enlightenment dream (which gets realized in the Vienna Circle and logical > positivism). Later Wittgenstein rejects this and his concept of language > games, along with Kuhn’s later work with the concept of paradigms, plays a > significant role in justifying the move toward a more post-modern > conception of truth, one that gets away from objective accuracy, and more > into pragmatic, contextual, intersubjective and non-absolutist claims. > > > > The ToK/UTUA frame inverts Wittgenstein on all three accounts. First, it > embraces the challenge of developing an authentic, Big, workable TOK, one > that tackles epistemology, metaphysics and ontology, and scientific BIG “E” > empirical knowledge and phenomenological small “e” knowledge, all in one > fell swoop. This is something he thought would have been absurd on its > face. > > Second, as I wrote in A New Unified Theory of Psychology, the system > represents a “post-postmodern” grand meta-narrative that includes > “Foundationalist” truth claims. How does it accomplish this? I argue that > in 1997, I made two separate “discoveries” that turn out to correspond > directly to early and late Wittgenstein. It turns out I went the other > direction, however, such that my first discovery was aligned with later W, > and my second with early W. > > > > I stumbled on the Justification Hypothesis in the spring of 1997. > Crucial to the JH, is the notion of justification systems, sometimes > referred to as “Justification Systems Theory” (JUST). > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_201602_making-2Dsense-2Dbeliefs-2Dand-2Dvalues-2Djust-2Dapproach&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=IDXcXF_ebHASoCKZJ0mdvDrIPTFZ1W5wX5PwFSUN38I&s=_kinGDZyEXUM-O3PlK7K4VJPYjYoRelBXeozcwFdBUA&e=> > JUST sees people as using language as a tool to coordinate and legitimize > actions and linguistic knowledge systems are held together by shared > processes of justification. In other words, JUST corresponds directly to > Wittgenstein’s concept of “language games”. > > > > Four months after playing around with JH, a new image of reality popped > out of my head. I was, in some ways, “factoring out” human language games > (justification systems) and seeing was left behind. What was left behind > was the picture of the universe offered by the Tree of Knowledge System. It > is a picture theory of reality that corresponds closely to the implications > of early W’s work. This is seen in how the Vienna Circle tried to develop a > “unified” view of science (see, e.g., Carnap’s work in 1934 on the > possibility of a unified picture of science). More recently, a softer > version of this vision was spelled out by E.O. Wilson (1998), in *Consilience: > The Unity of Knowledge*. > > > > So, I want to welcome you to a list that, if we can allow ourselves to > dream, perhaps will spark conversations that historians will come to look > back on as being the seeds that characterized how the 21st Century came to > see human knowledge in a different, post-Wittgenstein light. That is, let’s > do what we can to have the 21st Century be a place in which Big TOK’s > flourish and provide worldviews that foster human thriving. > > > > Welcome aboard! I look forward to embarking on this journey with all of > you. > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_blog_theory-2Dknowledge&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=whzjhM52FAKPlklL0dfmPyl1VTYukF-VmnokWBSPUZM&s=2Qb1gshYrEPYSetErE3I29owX2NzvrRrkmHoLULd4GQ&e= > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_blog_theory-2Dknowledge&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=IDXcXF_ebHASoCKZJ0mdvDrIPTFZ1W5wX5PwFSUN38I&s=NlfqqW7MAYO3eVDYw9GkE8auJYd_6CwghEe9pXhja78&e=> > > > > ############################ > > 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 > > ############################ > > 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 > ############################ 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