Dear TOK-SOCIETY-L list, just thought I would take the floor to acknowledge
my whole-hearted interest and enthusiasm in participating in this list. As
Gregg indicated in his opening day statement, he and I have been discussing
our mutually shared interests for several weeks, trying to find common
ground. We have already attained it in principle since both of us have been
trying to raise awareness in our own specific fields of interest in
psychology and biology that there's a problem in not having a unified
framework in the case of psychology, or a central theory in the case of
biology- if you don't know there's a box, how can you think outside of it?
Hubris aside, without an attempt to formulate such efforts, both fields
will deteriorate, in my opinion, for lack of 'first principles' due to the
fundamental nature of cyberspace, which is far more conducive to 'me-ism'
than to 'we-ism'. And as Gregg intimated, I have formulated a theory of
biology that interdigitates with physics mechanistically, offering an
overarching opportunity to consider the meaning of Consciousness, which is
what I think as an ultimate goal that would carry us all to a new level of
understanding for how we 'know that we know'. I did want to add that my
approach to the problem(s) we face is founded in empirical science as a
working scientist for the last 50 years, i.e. I am not a philosopher, but
the time may have come for such if we are seeking a paradigm shift. With
that lofty thought, I will relinquish the floor, with the eternal hope for
more light than heat..... John Torday



On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 5:25 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=3sZHT9uSrWucdlCLq0ljzJy_F-HYYJeKP3klXZxa4ek&s=Le0LpFlyijPHdkYnzp2LS0NoFbthEPsde2-cV3HjtPY&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=3sZHT9uSrWucdlCLq0ljzJy_F-HYYJeKP3klXZxa4ek&s=imTq6fdoxd05QPIefGiwNFoCpBvmZcynJ6MUO9cKMGc&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=3sZHT9uSrWucdlCLq0ljzJy_F-HYYJeKP3klXZxa4ek&s=Mxzkf8Sy0FT2dPNGuG-2xM2eeO3Bg5esOYAI5LqiKAQ&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=3sZHT9uSrWucdlCLq0ljzJy_F-HYYJeKP3klXZxa4ek&s=-Sylu5sVkjjNIrCBzfVzfmvoKg7u0AGNBkSHz8CvKeE&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=3sZHT9uSrWucdlCLq0ljzJy_F-HYYJeKP3klXZxa4ek&s=rAGq4UvebpdFIKkLgq_G3ZTOind59nHTPg3DOYM3VSs&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=3sZHT9uSrWucdlCLq0ljzJy_F-HYYJeKP3klXZxa4ek&s=YKfwttyu0IhBIaWqllR5XWEsP6gGHK74muQpGf9QZOY&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=3sZHT9uSrWucdlCLq0ljzJy_F-HYYJeKP3klXZxa4ek&s=TFhU9QHjCMyoKoOw871J1ev6qSQ-H9fzoRjiuvXx5vE&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=3sZHT9uSrWucdlCLq0ljzJy_F-HYYJeKP3klXZxa4ek&s=N26KSetxKv0UqfNVjMvkw_mJIae81y8p-sq04CJYOZI&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=3sZHT9uSrWucdlCLq0ljzJy_F-HYYJeKP3klXZxa4ek&s=onyPCwslq2BgDPki_1yW1Tp5NcoCn_0MvCy4tP_ZigY&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=3sZHT9uSrWucdlCLq0ljzJy_F-HYYJeKP3klXZxa4ek&s=ZwpAyNdx9IgtgO46oCNDhWH7MHqG9kveJXtLUh-CC1I&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=3sZHT9uSrWucdlCLq0ljzJy_F-HYYJeKP3klXZxa4ek&s=ngfbWvMRnWgP0K_bclR3J3cSpEZ2VsfihVVFk9oVOLk&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=3sZHT9uSrWucdlCLq0ljzJy_F-HYYJeKP3klXZxa4ek&s=vcN-Sq6bgSYIBu1JLNqLjbci6pmAdLaAyFSmIIfuVow&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=3sZHT9uSrWucdlCLq0ljzJy_F-HYYJeKP3klXZxa4ek&s=GIECJDXMFy97m7pzvC-ZjqsDxLiO4sL5cY7ZrE4ZmnU&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=3sZHT9uSrWucdlCLq0ljzJy_F-HYYJeKP3klXZxa4ek&s=yxpO692RpCYZzS7Qg17DmDhGPyut30OM64oiSj2a4JA&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=3sZHT9uSrWucdlCLq0ljzJy_F-HYYJeKP3klXZxa4ek&s=1RU5BkJy17i1xw2JTe3mtnhsexuRMjFe7rkZoC5f-s8&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