Waldemar: I am happy to define the concept and am glad that you asked. For me, meta-reality is the intentional awareness that we each exist in a personal Plato's Cave, and that, at the justification level of complexity, reality is defined by what a powerful majority agrees it is. The famous Brown-eyes/Blue-eyes experiment conducted by Jane Elliott illustrates the way in which humans can rapidly attach personal meaning to arbitrary features and then organize their behavior around the new symbolic meaning with intense focus and drive. In her experiment, she was able to get blue-eyed young children to bully the brown-eyed children by claiming that blue-eyed children were better. Then she flipped the script and said, "Turns out that brown-eyed kids are better," and the Brown-eyed children began to bully the blue-eyed children. The adult version of the first half of this kind of experiment was, of course, replicated in Philip Zimbardo's prison experiment, where even Zimbardo himself allegedly became lost in the fantasy of the experiment in his role as the prison warden. More colloquially, back in 2007 I met the woman who coined the term "wikiality" for the Colbert Report, a show that was on Comedy Central for a while. It is the idea that cultural reality is popularly determined, with the mechanism of wikipedia's community editing feature used as the metaphorical basis for the term. In reference to the Bohm frame mentioned earlier, our desire to better determine the implicate (deeper, actual process) versus the explicate (our folk understanding) version of what happening in any given situation should be enhanced by the awareness of this phenomenon of wikiality, or, in UTUA terminology, the Justification Hypothesis. I am curious about your reaction to either the concept or my attempt to define it, and am wondering if anything above was interesting or controversial. Best wishes, -Chance On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 9:13 PM, [log in to unmask] < [log in to unmask]> wrote: > Chance: > > I am the novice here. > Please, would you define what you mean by “meta-reality?” > I am not questioning you, I just want to understand. > > Best regards, > > Waldemar > > *Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD* > (Perseveret et Percipiunt) > 503.631.8044 <(503)%20631-8044> > > *Strive not to be a success, but rather to be of value.* (A Einstein) > > > > > > > On Dec 29, 2017, at 5:32 PM, Chance McDermott <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > > Happy Holidays, ToK group! > > Firstly, I was excited to experience the depth content in this thread so > far. I found myself wanting to jump in and dialogue at several points > within each email, and I imagine others may share the same wondering about > where to start and what to focus on. > > *Parisa*, It's good to hear from you! I imagine many have personal > ambitions, interests, and agendas, and my own for this thread is to read > the perspectives of others who are aware of and sensitive to a meta-reality > frame of being. I get a great happy *charge* when I'm around other > people who think and question at this particular level. > > What makes this thread special beyond the shared perceptual frequency is > the unknown yield from the technical level of discussion. If the goal is > to get a clear and effective model of how the Universe works, then the > better get at sharing information and insights between one another, the > faster the model will come into focus and become internalized. > > *Allie*, I thoroughly enjoyed your process message. I felt a hesitancy > to reply at first because I became aware of the different roles we have > acted out in our time together as students. I usually rely on "in the > moment" facial cues and energetic feel to determine what role I take, and > so email can be a challenge for me when engaging in process over text and > with an audience I am growing to become familiar with. That said, your > message about how I might respond to your presence reminded me of the > Edward Bradford Titchener club, which was an exclusive group created in the > early 20th century for male psychologists to informally share research > ideas, smoke cigars, and build friendships. My understanding is that a > female psychologist fought to gain acceptance into the club, which > henceforth became more inclusive. I also liked your comment about the > exchange frame, as I have read that women are more prepared to adopt a > relational and communal perspective on reality due to the intense > experience of childbirth. > > *Garry Brill*, > > You wrote that: > > *Briefly, the main challenge is that science, the quest to uncover > objective, timeless and universal principles (laws), is not appropriate for > understanding historically- and culturally-situated beings whose behavior > and mental life (including language games) are consituted by their > constantly changing, meaningful interpretations of their culture, > relationships, and experiences.* > > I continue to struggle with exactly what you wrote, and I think this is > one of the challenges that Gregg's theory faces in terms of its > accessibility. The implication is that we as humans are, literally, making > all of us this up. And yet I'm also typing symbols on keys that are > sending frequencies into outer space, a google machine learning algorithm, > and then to you. So clearly science is moving ahead with or without us. *To > me, that means that, more than ever, the institutions of knowledge > themselves must be studied with the awareness of the mechanism and bias you > describe above*. > > > > -Chance > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Parisa Montazeri < > [log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> >> Hi Team ToK! >> >> My name is Parisa and I'm a former (but perpetual:) student of Gregg's. >> >> I'm working as a contract clinical psychologist with the US Air Force (in >> England). >> We work most with trauma, anxiety, and/or depression; but, what I think >> is neat, and hopeful, is that no matter the diagnosis, there are common >> things that connect us all. In that: Power - the feeling of being >> competent, purposeful, and effective in our work and our ability to provide >> resources and safety; Love - being able to have relationships where we can >> laugh and love and feel loved and that we belong, and then to also be free >> of such connections. Meaning: Freedom - knowing life is a huge >> interconnected system, but also wanting to be free of this to some degree; >> feeling autonomous and that life is not just a series of obligations. >> >> In all transparency, Love, Power, and Freedom are also what I did my >> dissertation on (Gregg's *Influence Matrix*), but I happen to believe in >> them and see them play out each day. I'm also interested in the mind-body >> connection, and how approaches such as functional medicine guide us to view >> people as whole and complex system that can heal (vs. diagnoses and >> symptoms). We live in a giant system, but we also are a giant system >> (inside:). >> >> I've always appreciated Gregg giving us ways to conceptualize, whether it >> be cases, people, or the world. ToK/UTUA promises to be the ultimate in a >> grand way to think about... well... everything. But where do we start? >> Isn't a grand theory of everything a kind religion for scientists? In that, >> a narrative for how things have come to be, what are place is in the world, >> etc.? >> >> What's a more concrete goal here? Do we think people will stop fighting >> and hurting each other as much if they had more of a bird's eye view of >> things? Or is stopping discontent not even the goal; but, rather, the goal >> is to not feel so alone if we understood how we're all connected in a >> larger narrative? >> >> Happy Holidays gang, and I'm glad to be a part of this! >> :) Parisa >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* "Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx" <[log in to unmask]> >> *To:* [log in to unmask] >> *Sent:* Sunday, December 24, 2017 3:48 PM >> >> *Subject:* Re: Welcome to the Theory of Knowledge! >> >> Happy Christmas Eve, TOK! >> >> Hope everyone has a good holiday. Thanks, Ali, for your personal >> introduction. For those on this list who are not clinicians, we >> clinicians often make a distinction between "content" and "process" talk, >> with content being about whatever topics are at hand and process being >> about the "how" of the relationship exchange, as in "How am I feeling? What >> is my place in this? What are the implied power dynamics?; How would I like >> it to go?" etc. Given that many of us are clinicians, I am glad that you, >> Ali, have opened up this kind of talk for us with your introduction. I >> think it is very appropriate to the scientific and humanistic enterprise in >> which we are engaged. >> >> I look forward to many interesting content and process discussions going >> forward! >> >> Best, >> Gregg >> >> ______________________________________________________________________ >> Gregg Henriques, Ph.D. >> Professor >> Director, C-I Doc Program >> 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=gJyL-4lfLlVZKXLspNBPLmbB8rO9nGklJaWiweU6fjY&s=HpDhnYkLeaGXgcZZpYCd2VsYZZ9MkP-nqEVDBjMvC4g&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=D9RO4Gbw932rIbRvrSZrouvc_ZmbJ3xfGhGt_-KA9k4&s=AXwZUVS4uAIm-6H-RScoDRId1D3AE6nMAkRigmXVLFU&e=> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion < >> [log in to unmask]> on behalf of Kenny, Alexis Catherine - >> kennyac (Dukes) >> *Sent:* Saturday, December 23, 2017 2:04 PM >> *To:* [log in to unmask] >> *Subject:* Re: Welcome to the Theory of Knowledge! >> >> ToK Society, >> >> Good winter afternoon. >> >> I find myself leaning toward writing in more of a stream of conscious >> style as a new/young mother and "non-traditional" psychology graduate >> student at James Madison University's Combined-Integrated Doctoral Program. >> >> Why so many identifiers you may ask? Because I'm an >> interpersonally-detailed individual I suppose... >> >> I'm curious (not sensitively curious or curious in a loaded manner in a >> way that could potentially make people (men?) feel uncomfortable, but just >> curious) about the space I take up in this conversation as a young woman. >> >> While I have found a professional home as a clinical psychologist >> in-training, I will be forever informed by and grateful to my humanities >> education (English and Spanish undergraduate majors, and a master's >> degree in Theology). >> >> Lastly, being a new parent has transformed my world as a human being, a >> complicated and beautifully-laden metamorphosis centered >> on relationality and the significance of its "exchange frame." >> >> So...identifiers, that's right. I share some of mine with you as I think >> they pigment the way in which I shall color this conversation with my (as >> is everyone's) uniquely tinted paintbrush. >> >> As student of Gregg's (and a participant of this listersev), I imagine >> myself as a Macy's Day Parade balloon handler, a little person holding >> tightly onto a rope attached to an entity so large and so grand, that for >> me to keep my feet on the ground requires creative effort; efforts usually >> driven by a need to make the intellectually abstract meaningful from a >> certain relational role at a particular moment in time (a mother >> entertaining her child with finger puppets, a therapist trainee unpacking a >> salient dream with a client (could use your help here Chance!), a wife >> trying to support her husband's professional development, etc.). >> >> I do hope that my introduction does not throw conversations already being >> had, my intent is not to stymie "thought progress" by any means. Rather, I >> want to know you all (while acknowledging and honoring the limitations a >> part of such virtual and content-specific exchanges), and look forward to >> working together as we take the fruits of intellect and share its >> sustenance with all others. >> >> Merry Christmas (for me) and Merry ____________ (for others)! >> >> Warmly, >> >> Ali >> >> *Alexis (Ali) Kenny*, M.A. >> Clinical and School Psychology Doctoral Candidate >> Division 52 - International Psychology: Membership Committee, Student >> Representative >> James Madison University - Harrisonburg, VA >> email: [log in to unmask] >> ------------------------------ >> *De:* tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> >> en nombre de Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> >> *Enviado:* viernes, diciembre 22, 2017 8:53:24 AM >> *Para:* [log in to unmask] >> *Asunto:* Re: Welcome to the Theory of Knowledge! >> >> Hi List, >> I would like to offer a quick reply to Gary, because he raises and >> important point about "factoring out language games". The meaning of this >> was not fully articulated in my opening. I was meaning in a "weak sense"; >> that is, by using the Justification Hypothesis to see how processes of >> justification emerge and picture provided by the ToK, then one can account >> for the (many) of the biases and blind spots that drive language games. I >> agree that a strong meaning would (such that there would be no language >> games, would be confusing and not workable). As I have been clear in my >> writing (e.g., Henriques, 2011), I see my system as a "justification >> system," as are all human linguistic propositional systems. >> >> I would also say that I would place the ToK/UTUA framework at large in >> the language game of philosophy, as opposed to science, per se. I just >> started to listen to the book, The Story of Philosophy ( >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Story-2DPhilosophy-2DOpinions-2DGreatest-2DP&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=gJyL-4lfLlVZKXLspNBPLmbB8rO9nGklJaWiweU6fjY&s=Q0Yu-raYDs4s9htVkOP5gs4UosgFDOjvc2qoEJ1oes8&e= >> hilosophers/dp/0671739166 >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Story-2DPhilosophy-2DOpinions-2DGreatest-2DPhilosophers_dp_0671739166&d=DwMFAw&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=kvBsJ1zviyd8GJoYuW6EIRNl4QJQi8hH2Kiebd0dQCc&m=aFJe8R-iBNLhiM2nPX-peSds66uNGBkFUbWv_o8nqSc&s=3a7MTuLlKxLp5jq-LjQ8RthsKQd3XlvAgsggwK9yvIA&e=>). >> It opens with a call for philosophical thinking that is very much in the >> spirit of this list. >> >> Best, >> Gregg >> >> >> ______________________________________________________________________ >> Gregg Henriques, Ph.D. >> Professor >> Director, C-I Doc Program >> 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=gJyL-4lfLlVZKXLspNBPLmbB8rO9nGklJaWiweU6fjY&s=HpDhnYkLeaGXgcZZpYCd2VsYZZ9MkP-nqEVDBjMvC4g&e= >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_blog_theory-2Dknowledge&d=DwMFAw&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=kvBsJ1zviyd8GJoYuW6EIRNl4QJQi8hH2Kiebd0dQCc&m=aFJe8R-iBNLhiM2nPX-peSds66uNGBkFUbWv_o8nqSc&s=7D7WPOcAqQcEB1QRY_sfyHdz1CVeG6y0Ud8kIs3E7J4&e=> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion < >> [log in to unmask]> on behalf of nysa71 < >> [log in to unmask]> >> *Sent:* Friday, December 22, 2017 8:08 AM >> *To:* [log in to unmask] >> *Subject:* Re: Welcome to the Theory of Knowledge! >> >> Hello ToK Society, >> >> My name is Jason Bessey. I've been interested in the ToK (since it was >> first brought to my attention by Steve Quackenbush) and been corresponding >> with Gregg about it for over a decade now since I was a Psychology >> under-grad. I have a general interest in the social sciences, and have been >> particularly interested in macroeconomic issues in recent years. I hope to >> learn from this group and contribute to it, at least in some small way. >> >> Happy Holidays, >> Jason >> >> On Thursday, December 21, 2017, 4:59:24 PM EST, Gary Brill < >> [log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> >> Greetings ToK-Society List, >> >> This is Gary Brill, recently retired from the Rutgers psychology faculty. >> I've been interested in the Tree of Knowledge System for several years and >> have been following its development into the UTUA framework and >> Metaphysical Empiricism. >> >> As Gregg knows, I have strong enthusiasm for the potential of these >> ideas, but I also have a number of questions and objections. For now, I >> will limit my comments to an important theme in Gregg's opening >> introduction to the list (one that Chance McDermott also touched upon in an >> earlier posting): the notion of "factoring out human language games." >> >> Gregg states that factoring out language games will leave behind the >> "picture of the universe offered by the Tree of Knowledge System." But if >> science (along with religion, law, societal customs, etc.) is a >> justification systems and if justification systems are language games (as >> stated in the opening introduction), then "factoring out language games" >> factors out science itself. Nothing is left behind. >> >> It seems to me that the ToK/UTUA must be conceptualized as situatied >> *within* the language game of science. And if that is the case, then there >> still remains the need to address various tough criticisms of the >> scientific approach to psychology, criticisms that have been leveled both >> by philosophers (e.g., Charles Taylor) and theoretical psychologists (e.g., >> Brent Slife, Frank Richardson, and many others). >> >> Briefly, the main challenge is that science, the quest to uncover >> objective, timeless and universal principles (laws), is not appropriate for >> understanding historically- and culturally-situated beings whose behavior >> and mental life (including language games) are consituted by their >> constantly changing, meaningful interpretations of their culture, >> relationships, and experiences. >> >> I consider the ToK/UTUA a very good attempt at framing things within the >> science language game, but I don't see how it can be justified on the basis >> of it being what is left when language games are factored out. >> >> Thanks to Gregg for establishing this group and happy holidays to all, >> Gary >> >> ############################ >> >> 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-bi >> n/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-bi >> n/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-bi >> n/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-bi >> n/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-bi >> n/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