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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism> 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:[log in to unmask]] 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) [cid:image001.png@01D37A3F.B0450D00] DBHDS: A life of possibilities for all Virginians From: tree of knowledge system discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Chance McDermott Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 7:23 PM To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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<tel:(540)%20568-7857> (phone) (540) 568-4747<tel:(540)%20568-4747> (fax) Be that which enhances dignity and well-being with integrity. Check out my Theory of Knowledge blog at Psychology Today at: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/theory-knowledge<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]<mailto: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]<mailto: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]<mailto: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