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