Hello ToK-Society List, I too would like to express my enthusiasm for participating in the Theory of Knowledge list serve, and I greatly appreciate Gregg's efforts to set up this discussion group. Back in the 1990's, a friend gave me a copy of the coffee table book that accompanies Encyclopedia Brittanica's [E.B.'s] "Great Books of the Western World" entitled *The Great Conversation* (with essays by Mortimer Adler and other Great Books gurus). At first, I was inspired by the prospect of considering the history of Western Thought as "great conversation" among historically-significant philosophers, scientists, historians, poets, dramatists, and novelists. I even toyed with the possibility of sitting down and reading all 60 volumes of the E.B. set in order! I started with Homer.... and that's where I stopped. Reading the books in chronological order was a silly idea, but I could think of no other way to organize such an ambitious reading project. So, I put away the Great Books and directed 75% of my intellectual energy to my chosen field of study (social-personality psychology), and the other 25% to music [which, oddly enough, had no place in the Great Books!]. Still, I never lost my passion for holistic understanding, even as I doubted I would ever achieve it. So I was quite intrigued to discover Gregg's ToK System back in 2003. What if there were a way to effectively organize -- and perhaps even *ground* -- the collective wisdom documented in the Great Books? I was sufficiently familiar with postmodern critiques of knowledge to realize that I could never embrace the ToK system [as I then understood it] without qualification. But Gregg's system was clearly evolving -- and so, I think, was I. In Spring 2014, I co-taught a section of *Philosophical Psychology *(with a colleague in our Philosophy Department) where the problem of theoretical unification was itself the unifying theme of the course (and we used Gregg's *A New Unified Theory of Psychology* as a text). As often happens with a class of that sort, I found myself with more questions than answers at the end of the semester. Specifically, I realized that I had a lot to learn about biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics, psychoanalysis, and literary theory before I could make any more progress with respect to the problem of unification. When Gregg shared with me an early draft of the UTUA framework, I was excited by its scope and ambition. Perhaps more importantly, it offered a point of departure from which I might begin a new intellectual quest. For example, as I recognized the importance of Euler's identity in UTUA framework, I found myself returning (with a newfound passion) to the field of mathematics to explore the meaning of this equation. Am I finally ready to participate in the *Great Conversation*? Not, perhaps, as Mortimer Adler conceived it. But I am certainly ready for a Great *Adventure.* Happy holidays! ~ Steve Q. On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 8:25 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=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=D_wjpX_Lb_4dkzUn8gbRVgaEYKVPL64UYNrOGkDgUfQ&s=0wjuW05Wbt_Pi2shYMMrcT9UnP_p8NsyQGsx2O7j6_I&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=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=D_wjpX_Lb_4dkzUn8gbRVgaEYKVPL64UYNrOGkDgUfQ&s=G3GnqytE3BBkN9PJR6F1ULEY4dsOeHI3VrzJ_DUzDpE&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=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=D_wjpX_Lb_4dkzUn8gbRVgaEYKVPL64UYNrOGkDgUfQ&s=zmNVWa1ECkSKfOD3dHU_-wKMgD-LU7fqcTT8g_nS80Q&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=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=D_wjpX_Lb_4dkzUn8gbRVgaEYKVPL64UYNrOGkDgUfQ&s=Ydw7SwIh800QOanV6UoPQLKCHsVutLsPo-Ux2vwzbus&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=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=D_wjpX_Lb_4dkzUn8gbRVgaEYKVPL64UYNrOGkDgUfQ&s=h-6xaWHSN6PmDVDsjoGYZMlpTEzZ_CjAOGxvEwpI5KQ&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=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=D_wjpX_Lb_4dkzUn8gbRVgaEYKVPL64UYNrOGkDgUfQ&s=9Wf3a9TOMHtZTC925CPw4JSNSY-CQCQZTCVytaf9JOY&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=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=D_wjpX_Lb_4dkzUn8gbRVgaEYKVPL64UYNrOGkDgUfQ&s=KXB6K-QyUB8P-kbcydMucrDGd1pSKWQdIz-Lz2D4JcM&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=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=D_wjpX_Lb_4dkzUn8gbRVgaEYKVPL64UYNrOGkDgUfQ&s=0kjAiAwKGvoyPtqR1tfIQoBr69vCBrAeGJXfOXAY7H4&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=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=D_wjpX_Lb_4dkzUn8gbRVgaEYKVPL64UYNrOGkDgUfQ&s=2SqpJarcScYF0i-6-jhjzUwnGapr8euO2hdJiTRMGxc&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=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=D_wjpX_Lb_4dkzUn8gbRVgaEYKVPL64UYNrOGkDgUfQ&s=iquvUtuE-QgAHQDgGjZk9ANlyetAQbjZ_mhfC2Ki4TY&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=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=D_wjpX_Lb_4dkzUn8gbRVgaEYKVPL64UYNrOGkDgUfQ&s=iPm4yeeJLKhYZJVXNZEgmJNU4l8B8nwlU6gbitjqJkU&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=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=D_wjpX_Lb_4dkzUn8gbRVgaEYKVPL64UYNrOGkDgUfQ&s=y0m8aCOnkFpUWhYnfUwB1ghy-PEwmhSPhmlfAnrZg8U&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=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=D_wjpX_Lb_4dkzUn8gbRVgaEYKVPL64UYNrOGkDgUfQ&s=ymvp1pujs5cg-c-oCTw8TlatbDqC2EKPAYKxi2xwmOY&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=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=D_wjpX_Lb_4dkzUn8gbRVgaEYKVPL64UYNrOGkDgUfQ&s=9iy7n5DVg2GxzFYmSfk4yL22QJaiK1zdoHEPIC_OehU&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=D_wjpX_Lb_4dkzUn8gbRVgaEYKVPL64UYNrOGkDgUfQ&s=WRevOqsBNFpHDAWGx3jsFqvXfu-Br7P6q4u3l7qXD9Y&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