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