Mark: and based on your comment that "nothing in the study of either drives
us in that direction" dismisses all that I have said on this listserve.
Despite the fact that I have repeatedly said that my work has been
published in the peer-reviewed literature, by a well-respected scientific
publisher (Wiley) and predicts many aspects of biology and medicine that
would otherwise remain dogma....

On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 7:49 AM, Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> John:
>
> As you might imagine, I have no particular affection for "parsimony" (or
> for that matter, "Ockham's Razor.")  In fact, I strongly suspect that the
> inclination to satisfy this urge -- which in the case of Ockham, a
> Franciscan "Spiritual," it was his desire for "self-perfection" (or, in
> theological terms, "gnosticism") that drove him to his "nominalism"
> (undercutting any hope for a "universal language" in the process) -- has
> psycho-technological roots . . . <g>
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ama
> zon.com_Spiritual-2DFranciscans-2DProtest-2DPersecution-
> 2DCentury_dp_0271023090&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4
> uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgj
> O2gOz4-A&m=S5N7fY4D0fsz6ZMfZoKvIIQmhKLyQUPuje5zxwChvso&s=
> MxhmuIj_aSduatWSEJ4zJG39M0nywDQHyOea5cFQ1tE&e=
>
> What I said in my previous email was that "I see *zero* reason why LIFE
> should obey the 'same rules' as MATTER" -- not that they do or don't but
> that there is no reason why they *should* (i.e. nothing in the study of
> either drives us in that direction.)  So, the "motives" of those who seek
> that coincidence also need to be taken into account, which is why I bought
> L.L. Whyte's biography to see what made him tick (hint: he thought it was
> what he called his "pagan-divine" desires, in rebellion against his
> Calvinist father) . . . !!
>
> C.P.Snow was a physicist.  He set himself up against the "poets" from
> Oxbridge who ran the British government -- which he wanted a piece of
> (bringing us back to Michael Mann's "Sources of Social Power" &c.)  It
> seems to me that this also recapitulates the topic of McLuhan's PhD, "The
> Classical Trivium" -- where Snow takes the side of "Dialectics" and McLuhan
> takes the side of "Grammar."  Yes, this is truly a *classic* conundrum,
> sometimes called "Ancients vs. Moderns."
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ama
> zon.com_Classical-2DTrivium-2DPlace-2DThomas-2DLearning_
> dp_1584232358&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_
> 5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=
> S5N7fY4D0fsz6ZMfZoKvIIQmhKLyQUPuje5zxwChvso&s=aBw_AT-rY8Zms2
> -lj65qCMHO9mzqefr9XLL4CNO20ZU&e=
>
> One recent examination of all this is Sabine Hossenfelder's "Lost in Math:
> How Beauty Leads Physics Astray" -- which digs in on why the search for
> "beauty" (aka "parsimony" &c) produces such ridiculous results.  Perhaps
> you will find it worth the read.
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ama
> zon.com_Lost-2DMath-2DBeauty-2DPhysics-2DAstray_dp_
> 0465094252&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_
> 5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=
> S5N7fY4D0fsz6ZMfZoKvIIQmhKLyQUPuje5zxwChvso&s=Fs-vHlgSbqOvTC
> GwYnRFp4X7JY51OZ_ezVGQf4XBfik&e=
>
> Mark
>
>
> Quoting JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>:
>
> 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=7zOkydjiK47pYS
>>> 4hoKM-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
>>
>
> ############################
>
> 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