John: Thank you for the notice of the NYT piece on Higher Ed’s Low Moment. I have had the unfortunate opportunity to watch that unfold during my academic career. I suggest that what is occurring to academia, in this regard, represents the end point of a process whose roots lie in Primary and Secondary education in the United States. Another outcome of this unfolding is, to me, the election of the current president and the painful, daily observation of the associated mental and behavioral dysfunction (which is meant as a clinical observation and not a political statement). Best regards, Waldemar Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD (Perseveret et Percipiunt) 503.631.8044 Strive not to be a success, but rather to be of value. (A Einstein) > On Jan 1, 2018, at 6:32 AM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Happy 2018 List! > > Thanks to John for those comments about the academy. I totally agree that new visions of and approaches to knowledge are needed for 2018 and beyond. > > Thanks to Parisa for her suggestion that I throw a piece of the UTUA puzzle out there for folks to chew on and respond to. This suggestion allows me to move the list into its next phase, following the introductions. My thinking was that we would now start to be focused on a topic that is relevant. I can start us off with a topic or two and then other folks (hopefully) might be interested in taking a topic and leading a discussion on it for a while. (Of course, folks are free to post ideas or questions about any topic at any time). > > There were a few possibilities I was considering. For example, I was considering walking folks through the “iQuad Entrance,” which was, in many ways, the proximal spark that resulted in igniting the list. But that is pretty long and complicated, so I was thinking that something more straightforward might be better to start this process. So, let’s begin with one of the most central concepts in the ToK/UTUA framework, that of behavior. > > As the psychologists on this list know, “behavior” has a long history in our field. It is one of the early subject matters of psychology; indeed, for behavioral psychologists like Watson, psychology was defined as the science of behavior. But, as those familiar with the ToK perspective are aware, this is odd because behavior, at least as it is used in many contexts, is much broader than the focus of psychology. For example, it is not uncommon for scientists to talk about the behavior of atoms, cells, and societies. This point suggests there is something wrong with defining psychology as the science of behavior. > > The trouble with the concept becomes clearer if we try to classify examples of behavior. Take a moment and consider the extent to which the following events are examples (or not) of behavior. How would you rate them on a scale from 1-5, from definition not behavior to definitely being behavior? > (a) a person decides not to go to the movies if it is raining; > (b) a beetle is swept away by the current in a river; > (c) a spider spins a web; > (d) a plant bends toward the sun; > (e) geese fly in a V formation; > (f) a person’s heartbeat speeds up following a nightmare; > (g) algae swim toward food; > (h) a rabbit’s fur grows over the summer season; > (i) an electron bounces off a magnetic field. > > Levitis, Lidicker, and Freund (2009) empirically demonstrated that scholars in the behavioral sciences did not have consensus on the extent to which these were examples of “behavior”. They end their article with the following definition of behavior as “the internally coordinated responses of whole living organisms (individuals or groups) to internal or external stimuli, excluding responses more easily understood as developmental changes”. > > The ToK/UTUA frame adopts a different approach. Tomorrow I will explain what that is. For now, I will simply point out that behavior is one of the most central concepts in all of science. And the Levitis article empirically demonstrates that scientists do not have a good working conception of it. So that is good evidence that this is an important issue to consider and get clear on. The ToK offers a unique perspective on the concept because it divides the universe into four different dimensions of behavioral complexity. Tomorrow I will show how that leads to a new taxonomy of behavior, called the Periodic Table of Behavior. This will be a key map in our language game, as it will set the stage for how we consider and talk about the behavior of objects, of organisms, of animals and of people. If this group can achieve consensus on how to think about behavior writ large, that will be an important step in the development of a shared language. So, more on the Periodic Table of Behavior tomorrow. > > Switching gears, I have been wondering if it might be useful to develop a “test” that one can take to assess one’s familiarity with the ToK/UTUA system. I am attaching a draft of 30 multiple choice questions designed to be at three different levels of knowledge about the system. I would welcome thoughts or feedback about the utility of such an instrument. And I would welcome your own questions if you have suggestions. And I can send answers if you want 😊. > > Thanks to you all. Here is to hoping for a great 2018. > > Best, > G > > > > Sent from Mail <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__go.microsoft.com_fwlink_-3FLinkId-3D550986&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=D5edWTlxY3sthn52IxWiVP_tWBFnxLGGledPEfr31hI&s=n0ghnNE8nesV2hfth7GcSx61iiUPYFW9LHyD-ByH0-Q&e= > for Windows 10 > > From: JOHN TORDAY <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2017 2:50 PM > To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: Welcome to the Theory of Knowledge! > > Dear ToK Listers, just a heads up/New Year's wish from me.....there was an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times today by Frank Bruni, entitled "Higher Ed's Low Moment", subtitled "In 2017, America's colleges found themselves on the defensive". The most striking statistic was the result of a recent Pew survey that 'sent shock waves through the world of higher education. Asked if colleges were having a positive or negative effect on America, 58 percent of Republicans and conservative-leaning independents said negative. That was up form just 37 percent two years earlier". I find resonance in such sentiments when my peers ask me why I bother to try and determine the cause of disease instead of just making drugs that mask the symptoms......and I tell them that that's not what I got into biomedical research for some 50 years ago. I still think it is feasible to cure disease, and continue to work in that direction, more at the theoretical level nowadays, trying to point out to the medical community that defining disease as the absence of health is archaic in this day and age, for example. But in general I sense a malaise even in the 'Ivory Tower' with regard to creative thinking, which I think is due to confusing knowledge with Information, thinking that there's nothing new under the Sun. I gave a lecture at a prestigious Evolutionary Biology meeting a few years back and was told by one of the leaders in the field of experimental evolution that all that I had said was in Waddington's "Strategy of the Genes". Of course that wasn't true because Waddington had merely described what I had provided mechanisms for, which is the same as the difference between Newton's description of gravity as the attraction of bodies, whereas Einstein explained that gravity was caused by the distortion of the fabric of space-time, offering the opportunity to connect gravity with the other forces of the Cosmos. That's like Mark Twain's comment that the difference between the almost right word & the right word is really a large matter--it's the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning. > > As we move forward with the ToK I hope that we will create lightening! Happy 2018! > > On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 7:25 AM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > Wonderful discussion. > > Chance, I thought your analysis was profound and right on target. Perhaps I can piggy-back off of it and add the following proposal. > > How about we call conventional justification systems “level 1”? This is the wikiality level of social norms and practices that legitimize the conventional worldview. As exemplified in the Blue Eyes-Brown Eyes social psych experiment, it is very fluid and responsive to issues of power, influence, tradition, social equilibrium and the like. And, as shown by all the remarkable diversity of worldviews, it is almost endlessly variable. But, it usually operates according to social influence and the interests and investments of those in power (until they lose power, and some other group justifies what is real and good). > > Then, there are more sophisticated, reflective, academic justification systems, like “science”. Let’s call conventional science a “Level 2” justification system. The levels here refer to the Explicate – Implicate dimension that stretches from regular, conventional understanding all the way to viewing the ultimate reality. Science is a much more systematic, self-corrective justification system than conventional reality. However, science has evolved to be a process and a method, a fragmented body of knowledge and an institution such that it is hard to operate from a scientific justification system in a broad way, only in the relatively narrow domains of scientific inquiry. Thus, one can operate from a very sophisticated perspective in quantum mechanics, but that does not, at the present, connect in any meaningful way to the Blue Eyes-Brown Eyes experiment. > > I would like to think that we, on this list, are wondering if there is a level 3 justification system. That is, can we pull all the effective/accurate level 2 systems together and see them from a coherent “meta” view? The ToK/UTUA Framework proposes to be a new kind of scientific humanistic philosophical justification system that can do this. It is a proposal to see and operate from the whole scientific humanistic landscape, from quantum mechanics to how humans justify ingroup-outgroup processes. > > I would also like to say that we can envision what be next, as a level 4. Examples here would be of “seers” who can get a glimpse of the ultimate reality beyond the effective organization of level 2, which is what the ToK/UTUA framework offers as a level 3. For example, John Torday on this list has a vision of the universe that includes a continuum of consciousness and an awakening of agency that offers a picture that is really beyond the ToK/UTUA framework, at least in terms of the nature of the implicate reality it proposes. > > Of course, no human has (or could ever have) a view of the ultimate, ultimate reality (remember, there are 130 billion stars in each galaxy and 100-200 billion galaxies in our universe and maybe many universes—boggles the capacity of our limited minds). That would be level 5 into 6 and so forth into God or the Buddhist concept of Emptiness whatever the ultimate, implicate reality is. > > So, maybe we can use the scale or level of justification approach to frame where justifications are. That is, are they (1) conventional, (2) post conventional scientific/advanced, (3) meta-theoretical whole, and (4) transcendental/mystical (or whatever word would capture the vision)? And I would think about the levels in terms of size, scope (or breadth and depth), and in terms of Craig Shealy’s famous reflective aphorism. Everyone is full of shit, just to different degrees and different levels of awareness. > > I would also add that this has implications for our real world. Our political/conventional justifications have lost their anchors, have become split and polarized and now we are seeing a massive and unhealthy tug of war and chaotic ineffective leadership. Science is too fragmented and now to polarized to lead toward a healthier meta-justification. Maybe a wholistic, big TOK could work if it was articulated and shared and marketed in the right way. I do believe people are confused and looking for sources of wisdom. > > Best, > G > > Sent from Mail <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__go.microsoft.com_fwlink_-3FLinkId-3D550986&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=crYwr9TKglOtSHlTrLo6q74HG6J4Ko93jk6nhMJP6no&s=_hhYal_hU2mqoIvQ_i1DmE3QOVdyoXeI_kuHEwkzH2A&e=> for Windows 10 > > From: Chance McDermott <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > Sent: Friday, December 29, 2017 10:00 PM > > To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: Welcome to the Theory of Knowledge! > > > Waldemar: > > I am happy to define the concept and am glad that you asked. For me, meta-reality is the intentional awareness that we each exist in a personal Plato's Cave, and that, at the justification level of complexity, reality is defined by what a powerful majority agrees it is. > > The famous Brown-eyes/Blue-eyes experiment conducted by Jane Elliott illustrates the way in which humans can rapidly attach personal meaning to arbitrary features and then organize their behavior around the new symbolic meaning with intense focus and drive. In her experiment, she was able to get blue-eyed young children to bully the brown-eyed children by claiming that blue-eyed children were better. Then she flipped the script and said, "Turns out that brown-eyed kids are better," and the Brown-eyed children began to bully the blue-eyed children. > > The adult version of the first half of this kind of experiment was, of course, replicated in Philip Zimbardo's prison experiment, where even Zimbardo himself allegedly became lost in the fantasy of the experiment in his role as the prison warden. > > More colloquially, back in 2007 I met the woman who coined the term "wikiality" for the Colbert Report, a show that was on Comedy Central for a while. It is the idea that cultural reality is popularly determined, with the mechanism of wikipedia's community editing feature used as the metaphorical basis for the term. > > In reference to the Bohm frame mentioned earlier, our desire to better determine the implicate (deeper, actual process) versus the explicate (our folk understanding) version of what happening in any given situation should be enhanced by the awareness of this phenomenon of wikiality, or, in UTUA terminology, the Justification Hypothesis. > > I am curious about your reaction to either the concept or my attempt to define it, and am wondering if anything above was interesting or controversial. > > Best wishes, > > -Chance > > On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 9:13 PM, [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > Chance: > > I am the novice here. > Please, would you define what you mean by “meta-reality?” > I am not questioning you, I just want to understand. > > Best regards, > > Waldemar > > Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD > (Perseveret et Percipiunt) > 503.631.8044 <tel:(503)%20631-8044> > > Strive not to be a success, but rather to be of value. (A Einstein) > > > > > > >> On Dec 29, 2017, at 5:32 PM, Chance McDermott <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: >> >> Happy Holidays, ToK group! >> >> Firstly, I was excited to experience the depth content in this thread so far. I found myself wanting to jump in and dialogue at several points within each email, and I imagine others may share the same wondering about where to start and what to focus on. >> >> Parisa, It's good to hear from you! I imagine many have personal ambitions, interests, and agendas, and my own for this thread is to read the perspectives of others who are aware of and sensitive to a meta-reality frame of being. I get a great happy charge when I'm around other people who think and question at this particular level. >> >> What makes this thread special beyond the shared perceptual frequency is the unknown yield from the technical level of discussion. If the goal is to get a clear and effective model of how the Universe works, then the better get at sharing information and insights between one another, the faster the model will come into focus and become internalized. >> >> Allie, I thoroughly enjoyed your process message. I felt a hesitancy to reply at first because I became aware of the different roles we have acted out in our time together as students. I usually rely on "in the moment" facial cues and energetic feel to determine what role I take, and so email can be a challenge for me when engaging in process over text and with an audience I am growing to become familiar with. That said, your message about how I might respond to your presence reminded me of the Edward Bradford Titchener club, which was an exclusive group created in the early 20th century for male psychologists to informally share research ideas, smoke cigars, and build friendships. My understanding is that a female psychologist fought to gain acceptance into the club, which henceforth became more inclusive. I also liked your comment about the exchange frame, as I have read that women are more prepared to adopt a relational and communal perspective on reality due to the intense experience of childbirth. >> >> Garry Brill, >> >> You wrote that: >> >> *Briefly, the main challenge is that science, the quest to uncover objective, timeless and universal principles (laws), is not appropriate for understanding historically- and culturally-situated beings whose behavior and mental life (including language games) are consituted by their constantly changing, meaningful interpretations of their culture, relationships, and experiences.* >> >> I continue to struggle with exactly what you wrote, and I think this is one of the challenges that Gregg's theory faces in terms of its accessibility. The implication is that we as humans are, literally, making all of us this up. And yet I'm also typing symbols on keys that are sending frequencies into outer space, a google machine learning algorithm, and then to you. So clearly science is moving ahead with or without us. To me, that means that, more than ever, the institutions of knowledge themselves must be studied with the awareness of the mechanism and bias you describe above. >> >> >> >> -Chance >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Parisa Montazeri <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: >> >> Hi Team ToK! >> >> My name is Parisa and I'm a former (but perpetual:) student of Gregg's. >> >> I'm working as a contract clinical psychologist with the US Air Force (in England). >> We work most with trauma, anxiety, and/or depression; but, what I think is neat, and hopeful, is that no matter the diagnosis, there are common things that connect us all. In that: Power - the feeling of being competent, purposeful, and effective in our work and our ability to provide resources and safety; Love - being able to have relationships where we can laugh and love and feel loved and that we belong, and then to also be free of such connections. Meaning: Freedom - knowing life is a huge interconnected system, but also wanting to be free of this to some degree; feeling autonomous and that life is not just a series of obligations. >> >> In all transparency, Love, Power, and Freedom are also what I did my dissertation on (Gregg's Influence Matrix), but I happen to believe in them and see them play out each day. I'm also interested in the mind-body connection, and how approaches such as functional medicine guide us to view people as whole and complex system that can heal (vs. diagnoses and symptoms). We live in a giant system, but we also are a giant system (inside:). >> >> I've always appreciated Gregg giving us ways to conceptualize, whether it be cases, people, or the world. ToK/UTUA promises to be the ultimate in a grand way to think about... well... everything. But where do we start? Isn't a grand theory of everything a kind religion for scientists? In that, a narrative for how things have come to be, what are place is in the world, etc.? >> >> What's a more concrete goal here? Do we think people will stop fighting and hurting each other as much if they had more of a bird's eye view of things? Or is stopping discontent not even the goal; but, rather, the goal is to not feel so alone if we understood how we're all connected in a larger narrative? >> >> Happy Holidays gang, and I'm glad to be a part of this! >> :) Parisa >> >> >> From: "Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx" <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> >> To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >> Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2017 3:48 PM >> >> Subject: Re: Welcome to the Theory of Knowledge! >> >> Happy Christmas Eve, TOK! >> >> Hope everyone has a good holiday. Thanks, Ali, for your personal introduction. For those on this list who are not clinicians, we clinicians often make a distinction between "content" and "process" talk, with content being about whatever topics are at hand and process being about the "how" of the relationship exchange, as in "How am I feeling? What is my place in this? What are the implied power dynamics?; How would I like it to go?" etc. Given that many of us are clinicians, I am glad that you, Ali, have opened up this kind of talk for us with your introduction. I think it is very appropriate to the scientific and humanistic enterprise in which we are engaged. >> >> I look forward to many interesting content and process discussions going forward! >> >> Best, >> Gregg >> >> ______________________________________________________________________ >> Gregg Henriques, Ph.D. >> Professor >> Director, C-I Doc Program >> Department of Graduate Psychology >> 216 Johnston Hall >> MSC 7401 >> James Madison University >> Harrisonburg, VA 22807 >> (540) 568-7857 <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: >> 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=D5edWTlxY3sthn52IxWiVP_tWBFnxLGGledPEfr31hI&s=CNnTnFQRMOkPYNiA6JJkRQkzL_wHK0asEVGar8KmxLw&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_blog_theory-2Dknowledge&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=D9RO4Gbw932rIbRvrSZrouvc_ZmbJ3xfGhGt_-KA9k4&s=AXwZUVS4uAIm-6H-RScoDRId1D3AE6nMAkRigmXVLFU&e=> >> >> >> >> From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of Kenny, Alexis Catherine - kennyac (Dukes) >> Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2017 2:04 PM >> To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >> Subject: Re: Welcome to the Theory of Knowledge! >> >> ToK Society, >> >> Good winter afternoon. >> >> I find myself leaning toward writing in more of a stream of conscious style as a new/young mother and "non-traditional" psychology graduate student at James Madison University's Combined-Integrated Doctoral Program. >> >> Why so many identifiers you may ask? Because I'm an interpersonally-detailed individual I suppose... >> >> I'm curious (not sensitively curious or curious in a loaded manner in a way that could potentially make people (men?) feel uncomfortable, but just curious) about the space I take up in this conversation as a young woman. >> >> While I have found a professional home as a clinical psychologist in-training, I will be forever informed by and grateful to my humanities education (English and Spanish undergraduate majors, and a master's degree in Theology). >> >> Lastly, being a new parent has transformed my world as a human being, a complicated and beautifully-laden metamorphosis centered on relationality and the significance of its "exchange frame." >> >> So...identifiers, that's right. I share some of mine with you as I think they pigment the way in which I shall color this conversation with my (as is everyone's) uniquely tinted paintbrush. >> >> As student of Gregg's (and a participant of this listersev), I imagine myself as a Macy's Day Parade balloon handler, a little person holding tightly onto a rope attached to an entity so large and so grand, that for me to keep my feet on the ground requires creative effort; efforts usually driven by a need to make the intellectually abstract meaningful from a certain relational role at a particular moment in time (a mother entertaining her child with finger puppets, a therapist trainee unpacking a salient dream with a client (could use your help here Chance!), a wife trying to support her husband's professional development, etc.). >> >> I do hope that my introduction does not throw conversations already being had, my intent is not to stymie "thought progress" by any means. Rather, I want to know you all (while acknowledging and honoring the limitations a part of such virtual and content-specific exchanges), and look forward to working together as we take the fruits of intellect and share its sustenance with all others. >> >> Merry Christmas (for me) and Merry ____________ (for others)! >> >> Warmly, >> >> Ali >> >> Alexis (Ali) Kenny, M.A. >> Clinical and School Psychology Doctoral Candidate >> Division 52 - International Psychology: Membership Committee, Student Representative >> James Madison University - Harrisonburg, VA >> email: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >> De: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> en nombre de Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> >> Enviado: viernes, diciembre 22, 2017 8:53:24 AM >> Para: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >> Asunto: Re: Welcome to the Theory of Knowledge! >> >> Hi List, >> I would like to offer a quick reply to Gary, because he raises and important point about "factoring out language games". The meaning of this was not fully articulated in my opening. I was meaning in a "weak sense"; that is, by using the Justification Hypothesis to see how processes of justification emerge and picture provided by the ToK, then one can account for the (many) of the biases and blind spots that drive language games. I agree that a strong meaning would (such that there would be no language games, would be confusing and not workable). As I have been clear in my writing (e.g., Henriques, 2011), I see my system as a "justification system," as are all human linguistic propositional systems. >> >> I would also say that I would place the ToK/UTUA framework at large in the language game of philosophy, as opposed to science, per se. I just started to listen to the book, The Story of Philosophy (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Story-2DPhilosophy-2DOpinions-2DGreatest-2DPhilosophers_dp_0671739166&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=D5edWTlxY3sthn52IxWiVP_tWBFnxLGGledPEfr31hI&s=BDYFdfXz1J-D8sbC9CXzNod7SpML0AFFLSVTb2UxGY0&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Story-2DPhilosophy-2DOpinions-2DGreatest-2DPhilosophers_dp_0671739166&d=DwMFAw&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=kvBsJ1zviyd8GJoYuW6EIRNl4QJQi8hH2Kiebd0dQCc&m=aFJe8R-iBNLhiM2nPX-peSds66uNGBkFUbWv_o8nqSc&s=3a7MTuLlKxLp5jq-LjQ8RthsKQd3XlvAgsggwK9yvIA&e=>). It opens with a call for philosophical thinking that is very much in the spirit of this list. >> >> Best, >> Gregg >> >> >> ______________________________________________________________________ >> Gregg Henriques, Ph.D. >> Professor >> Director, C-I Doc Program >> Department of Graduate Psychology >> 216 Johnston Hall >> MSC 7401 >> James Madison University >> Harrisonburg, VA 22807 >> (540) 568-7857 <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: >> 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=D5edWTlxY3sthn52IxWiVP_tWBFnxLGGledPEfr31hI&s=CNnTnFQRMOkPYNiA6JJkRQkzL_wHK0asEVGar8KmxLw&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_blog_theory-2Dknowledge&d=DwMFAw&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=kvBsJ1zviyd8GJoYuW6EIRNl4QJQi8hH2Kiebd0dQCc&m=aFJe8R-iBNLhiM2nPX-peSds66uNGBkFUbWv_o8nqSc&s=7D7WPOcAqQcEB1QRY_sfyHdz1CVeG6y0Ud8kIs3E7J4&e=> >> >> >> >> From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of nysa71 <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> >> Sent: Friday, December 22, 2017 8:08 AM >> To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >> Subject: Re: Welcome to the Theory of Knowledge! >> >> Hello ToK Society, >> >> My name is Jason Bessey. I've been interested in the ToK (since it was first brought to my attention by Steve Quackenbush) and been corresponding with Gregg about it for over a decade now since I was a Psychology under-grad. I have a general interest in the social sciences, and have been particularly interested in macroeconomic issues in recent years. I hope to learn from this group and contribute to it, at least in some small way. >> >> Happy Holidays, >> Jason >> >> On Thursday, December 21, 2017, 4:59:24 PM EST, Gary Brill <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: >> >> >> Greetings ToK-Society List, >> >> This is Gary Brill, recently retired from the Rutgers psychology faculty. I've been interested in the Tree of Knowledge System for several years and have been following its development into the UTUA framework and Metaphysical Empiricism. >> >> As Gregg knows, I have strong enthusiasm for the potential of these ideas, but I also have a number of questions and objections. For now, I will limit my comments to an important theme in Gregg's opening introduction to the list (one that Chance McDermott also touched upon in an earlier posting): the notion of "factoring out human language games." >> >> Gregg states that factoring out language games will leave behind the "picture of the universe offered by the Tree of Knowledge System." But if science (along with religion, law, societal customs, etc.) is a justification systems and if justification systems are language games (as stated in the opening introduction), then "factoring out language games" factors out science itself. Nothing is left behind. >> >> It seems to me that the ToK/UTUA must be conceptualized as situatied *within* the language game of science. And if that is the case, then there still remains the need to address various tough criticisms of the scientific approach to psychology, criticisms that have been leveled both by philosophers (e.g., Charles Taylor) and theoretical psychologists (e.g., Brent Slife, Frank Richardson, and many others). >> >> Briefly, the main challenge is that science, the quest to uncover objective, timeless and universal principles (laws), is not appropriate for understanding historically- and culturally-situated beings whose behavior and mental life (including language games) are consituted by their constantly changing, meaningful interpretations of their culture, relationships, and experiences. >> >> I consider the ToK/UTUA a very good attempt at framing things within the science language game, but I don't see how it can be justified on the basis of it being what is left when language games are factored out. >> >> Thanks to Gregg for establishing this group and happy holidays to all, >> Gary >> >> ############################ >> >> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: >> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >> or click the following link: >> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1> <UTUA Test.docx> > ############################ 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