Gregg, I welcome the opportunity to comment on communication, values,
responsibility, etc, etc and language. In my way of cobbling life and
matter together, starting from the Singularity/Big Bang, the cell as the
first Niche Construction, cell-cell communication, cell-environment
communication (epigenetics), 'First there were bacteria, now there is New
York!', it would only make sense that language- body, oral- emerged to
perpetuate the interrelationship between the inorganic and the organic. In
the spirit of parsimony, it would make sense to consider the relationship
between cell-cell communication and language as a continuum, in contrast to
language as a human 'invention', which is anthropocentric and
counter-productive IMHO. Suffice it to say that we now have a 'Tower of
Babel', which we ToKers are trying to level in order to be able to find a
common meta-language- a noble effort which I support wholeheartedly.
Minimally, we will have solved C.P. Snow's 'Two Cultures' problem.

On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 6:39 AM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Mark,
>   I like your comments about communication. In terms of human
> communication, it jumps me into the concept of language games. I think we
> can build better language games that are more effective at fostering
> wisdom. That is the essence of the ToK/UTUA mission. Concepts like
> justification, influence and investments are, IMO, useful tools for
> understanding human behavior. And we need new, better and wiser tools to
> dance with the changes in the new paradigm that we find ourselves in.
>
> Would love to hear others thoughts about communication, values,
> responsibility and so forth.
>
> Best,
> Gregg
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tree of knowledge system discussion [mailto:TOK-SOCIETY-L@
> listserv.jmu.edu] On Behalf Of Mark Stahlman
> Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2018 4:16 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: On the possibility Integrating Human Knowledge
>
> Gregg:
>
> Welcome back and I like "the message is the medium" . . . !!
>
> When McLuhan decided to use that term, among the many things he had in
> mind was the "medium" used in laboratories for growing colonies of
> organisms -- or what we used to call "agar" when I was wearing a lab-coat.
>
> The challenge that everyone who has attempted to *integrate* Human
> Knowledge has had, of course, is dealing with the one-and-the-many.
> We know that both must simultaneously be "true" but how are they to be
> reconciled?
>
> What is it that "unifies" and what is it that "separates" (and is it the
> same thing)?  How do we deal with the "universal" and the "particular" all
> under the same umbrella?
>
> The notion that it is *communications* which unifies and separates -- from
> cell-to-cell to culture-to-culture -- seems to be where we're heading and I
> like that path.
>
> "Communication" is a word based on "in common," which it shares with
> "community" &c.  Within this etymology, there is both the recognition of
> the "one" and the "many."  It also carries the meaning that there are many
> "mechanisms" for communications and what cells perform is not identical to
> the communications that cultures are founded upon (thus my interest in
> Semiotics &c).
>
> All of which begs the important question of how are we going to
> *communicate* in our "new paradigm" and what will this new approach mean
> for our "community"?
>
> Mark
>
> P.S. Under previous communications conditions, we tried to build "one
> world."  That is over now, because those conditions have changed.  In
> particular, I have been deeply engaged with China for the past 20 years.
> China will never be a part of the Western attempts to make our
> lives "global" (and we will never be a part of what they are doing.)
> Two radically different *communications* approaches -- the Alphabet and
> Ideo/pictographics -- developed in these two places 2500+ years ago (in the
> Axial Age) and, as a result, two very different "cultures"
> were produced.  And, yes there are others . . . <g>
>
> Quoting "Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx" <[log in to unmask]>:
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > It is good to be back at my home computer after 12 days of "gluttony
> > and sloth." I have been thrilled by all the insightful contributions
> > to the list.
> >
> >   Corinne, thanks much both for your artwork and for the recent post
> > about plants. Plant behavior became a point of fascination for me in
> > figuring out psychology's language game. I also think the article
> > highlights many of the things that John has been trying to say about
> > how physiology and cell-cell communication is foundational to
> > understanding our essences. At the same time, the nervous system is a
> > "game changer" when it comes to the "fast" behavior of animals.
> > Whereas plant behavior is complex, responsive to stimuli, and highly
> > functional, I don't think we should call it "mental," and I think that
> > we should be careful in using terms like 'see' and 'hear,' as in the
> > title of the article. For us human primates, the term "see"
> > is intimately tied to our subjective experience of vision. There is no
> > evidence that plants have a subjective experience (AKA perceptual
> > consciousness) of vision. They are clearly physiologically aware of
> > light stimuli and respond accordingly. The relationship between
> > functional behavior and the subjective experience of being, is, as
> > Steve's review of William James will likely point out, crucial in
> > trying to solve the language game of psychology. As slide 11 in the
> > BIT key idea ppt highlights, consciousness does not equal
> > behavior<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.greg
> > ghenriques.com_bit.html&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5
> > nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=
> uHKAWFaAP1VQfQO7Zs6RMMP9dM1fVSGtIkNi3Oi3Mg0&s=7zOkydjiK47pYS4hoKM-38Lw7Z4O0O153QWaV-8u0ec&e=>,
> although we can use the ToK System to understand how perceptual
> consciousness is a subset of behavior.
> >
> > Thanks much to Nancy for her articulation of the development of human
> > cognitive abilities and her evolutionary/Piagetian analyses.
> > Nancy, I think both of your assumptions about evolutionary lineage and
> > about lining up phylogeny with ontogeny in the way that you to
> > understand the evolution of human thought highly valuable. I am glad
> > to hear your connection to Merlin Donald. We have not spoken about
> > that previously. Early in his book, Merlin Donald makes a central
> > point: During the relatively short time of human emergence, the
> > structure of the primate mind was radically altered; or rather was
> > gradually surrounded by new representational systems and absorbed into
> > a larger cognitive apparatus. (p. 4)  In the language of the ToK, what
> > we became surrounded by were both the technological and linguistic
> > environments that resulted in a dramatic shift in the flow of
> > energy-information. The linguistic networks that formed were
> > justification systems; narratives that provided the structure for our
> > social lives and labeled Culture as the fourth dimension of behavioral
> > complexity.
> >
> >   Mark, I have been very much enjoying reading up on the Center for
> > Digital Life and Marshal McLuhan's work on media. I have found his
> > analysis of mediums fascinating. In what might be an odd association,
> > it reminded me a bit of Richard Dawkins' The Extended
> > Phenotype<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wiki
> > pedia.org_wiki_The-5FExtended-5FPhenotype&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7
> > vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4
> > -A&m=uHKAWFaAP1VQfQO7Zs6RMMP9dM1fVSGtIkNi3Oi3Mg0&s=dfNfUeDnjiTyyZYuh8x
> > a4IXqvSBvXL3D4oWAmVhr5LI&e=> (and John's notions of Niche
> > Construction). Certainly, as we radically alter our environment, we
> radically alter ourselves. On the ride home from the beach yesterday, I
> found myself inverting is his motto (the medium is the message) to "the
> message is the medium." The inverted motto lines up directly with the key
> insight of the ToK.
> > That is, the mediums of cell-cell communication/genetic info (Life),
> > neuro-mental-subjectivity (Mind), and
> > linguistic-person-society-intersubjectivity (Culture) are the
> > "conglomerates" that allow us to unweave the rainbow of behavior and
> > see the dimensions that make us what and who we are.
> >
> > Ultimately, it seems to me that these are the kinds of
> > interdisciplinary conversations that should be going on as we search
> > for ways to integrate knowledge. As Joe commented, none of us has all
> > the answers. But together we might be able to fashion a reasonable
> > picture of the whole. I am reminded of the philosopher Oliver Reiser's
> > opening call in his book The Integration of Human Knowledge (which I
> > found had remarkable parallels to the ToK version of reality), which
> > seems perhaps even more appropriate today as it was when he wrote 60
> > years ago:
> >
> > In this time of divisive tendencies within and between the nations,
> > races, religions, sciences and humanities, synthesis must become the
> > great magnet which orients us all...[Yet] scientists have not done
> > what is possible toward integrating bodies of knowledge created by
> > science into a unified interpretation of man, his place in nature, and
> > his potentialities for creating the good society. Instead, they are
> > entombing us in dark and meaningless catacombs of learning (Reiser,
> > 1958, p. 2-3, italics in original).
> >
> > Am happy to be back in the flow.
> >
> > Best,
> > Gregg
> > ___________________________________________
> > 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=https-3A__www.psychologytod
> > ay.com_blog_theory-2Dknowledge&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9R
> > SjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=uHKAWF
> > aAP1VQfQO7Zs6RMMP9dM1fVSGtIkNi3Oi3Mg0&s=iyFRFA9RrDTde63r0NoDqF9Q4vP1aP
> > Gsb8-0WN1FbRs&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
>
> ############################
>
> 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