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