John: Thanks! In Gregg's "dimensions of complexity" hierarchy the highest-level is "culture" -- which I'm suggesting is *caused* by our technological inventions (acting as forms) -- so I suspect that the topic of "physiological stress" and why it is caused now needs to be explored. When you say "caused by the breakdown in cell-cell communication as a result of the loss of bioenergetics, which is finite" you seem to be alluding to what is called *efficient* causality -- which is the one most associated with "positive" science originating in the paradigm from the 16th/17th-century (also where "energy" was primary) -- right? But that paradigm was "overthrown" in the 19th/20th-century (and, yes, that's why Kuhn wrote his 1962 "Scientific Revolutions" book). Today science has no positive grasp on causality, instead substituting "probability," which comes with its own train-load of problems. Indeed, one of the pioneering AI researchers, Judea Pearl, has been trying (without much luck) to somehow rescue a sense of "cause," since its absence is seriously getting in the way of building human-like robots . . . !! https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Book-2DWhy-2DScience-2DCause-2DEffect_dp_046509760X&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=a_atcpO9RlELX5ilA4Jj-CdDwoFgkCQwEiLcWwdTXCg&s=Emly2WgLo3WjMuPtYW9EV87r_u5PhTwjCgKcq0iqYEY&e= I've suggested (in private email) to Gregg that he invented "dimensions of complexity" (which he admits doesn't exist in "complexity science") to build his ToK for *exactly* this reason: we don't know what "causality" means anymore. This requires us to go-back-to Aristotle's "four causes" and to sort through how they function in today's "culture." And, to do that, we will need to use McLuhan to get there. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Four-5Fcauses&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=a_atcpO9RlELX5ilA4Jj-CdDwoFgkCQwEiLcWwdTXCg&s=-7U_EBV5O7yj1-5bSUIawFTpdgmSgwl0Tz8tNYTCX84&e= Much work to be done . . . <g> Mark P.S. Some would suggest that there is a "higher-level" than culture and call it "civilization" -- as written about extensively by Arnold Toynee &al. For what it's worth, at my Center, we have termed the top-level "spheres" to reflect the global changes caused by *electric* technologies, beginning with the Telegraph in the mid-1800s. These "dimensions" require an appropriate *metaphysics* which is grounded in a thorough retrieval of what we once understood about causes -- all four of them. P.P.S. In the West (as civilization or sphere), the ur-text is the Bible. And in the East, it is the Yijing (aka "I Ching"). There is simply no way to think about this level of *organization* without a comprehensive "education" in these texts. No, this is not needed to understand cell-cell communication but, as we know, that's not the full ToK story. I began my study of the Bible in 1970 (at the age of 22), when I went to University of Chicago Divinity School (looking for a draft deferment), majoring in the "Old Testament." I remember once floating in a salt-water pool in Tiberias, Israel, listening to jokes about how "Jesus got nailed on his boards," with some Jewish friends who declared that I was "more Jewish" than they were. In fact, I'm Catholic but my children *are* Jewish. P.P.P.S. The "secularization" that dominated our 20th-century lives is over. Kaput! The new *digital* paradigm in which we have already living for 20+ years could be summarized by "Less work: More religion." This is what Jurgen Habermas, yes, a Marxist, calls the "Post-secular Age." As work shifts to the robots and people wind-up with a massive increase in their "leisure," many of them will move to lives of religious activity, including "monasteries" and a huge increase in "contemplation" -- all of which means that we are already living in a very different "culture" from the one we grew up in. Yes, it will be a challenge for ToK to explain why that happened. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Awareness-2DWhat-2DMissing-2DReason-2DPost-2Dsecular_dp_0745647219&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=a_atcpO9RlELX5ilA4Jj-CdDwoFgkCQwEiLcWwdTXCg&s=oKSiJicoDfZ5DBi-buQPxCI8ws_F7TIZx7iOCi8mUe4&e= Quoting JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>: > In response, I am not very familiar with scripture, so not well versed in > the Book of Revelation......a reflection of my poor education? > > As for --> What you didn't address is the biological process for > *destroying* "equipose" (i.e. "progress," "communism" &c) and its > relationship to "mutation" (and/or other processes, like cancer, for > instance) . . . !! > > If I understand your question correctly, my conceptualization of evolution > is based on cell-cell communication as the basis for development and > phylogeny mediated by soluble growth factors and their eponymous > receptors. Such interactions are known to determine the patterns of growth > and differentiation that occur during embryogenesis, culminating in > homeostasis at the time of birth, and subsequently during the life cycle of > the > the organism. Death/senescence is caused by the breakdown in cell-cell > communication as a result of the loss of bioenergetics, which is finite. > Mutations occur when the organism is under physiologic stress, causing the > production of Radical Oxygen Species due to shear stress to the walls of > the capilllaries.....such Radical Oxygen Species are known to cause gene > mutations and duplications. But it should be borne in mind that those > genetic changes are occurring within the context and confines of the > homeostatic regulation of the cell-cell interactions. The cells will > remodel themselves until a new homeostatic set point is reached, > constituting what we > think of as evolution. So if evolution is thought of as 'progress', that is > how it has transpired...perhaps you could find an explanation for communism > based on this mechanism of evolution. As for cancer based on the same > mechanism, if the cell-cell interactions cannot re-establish homeostasis, > one of the cells will proliferate to fill form a 'new' organism in order to > fulfill its mission of homeostasis within the organismic construct. I have > attached > paper of us on the topic fyi. > > On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 5:44 AM, Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > >> John: >> >> I was off kayaking (and eating lobster salad at Pop's restaurant) >> yesterday, so I'll take your comments one-at-a-time (the last of which was >> in a private email). >> >> #1 "Communism" has nothing to do with "cooperation." Instead, it was an >> expression of the Protestant *evangelical* expectation of an Armageddon >> that would end human biology once-and-for-all. Marx was a hired-gun by F. >> Engels (paid for by his father's factory), who was actually responsible for >> all this nonsense. >> >> Engels was raised in Barmen, Germany, where his youthful experiences were >> of itinerant preachers raising the roof with "Repent the End is Near" -- >> whereas Marx came from Trier, where he identified with the local farmers. >> >> "Communism" is a fundamental *rejection* of "equipose" and instead an >> attempt to end this world with a "material" version of the 2nd Coming. How >> familiar are you with the Book of Revelation . . . ?? >> >> Furthermore, what we would now call "human" didn't exist until roughly >> 500BC (and then only in a few places), or what Karl Jaspers called the >> "Axial Age." Hunter Gatherers were the same species but not at all the >> same "phenotype" that is today encountered by anyone who understood that >> term. This is the topic of Jaynes and Donald, which I will wait for Greg >> to return to elaborate. >> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wiki >> pedia.org_wiki_Axial-5FAge&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4 >> uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgj >> O2gOz4-A&m=GHCgWRTvDK4nxxOO9mUcZOXeKqbTrkLmHYR2JQzUcdQ&s=k-1 >> yHhOxtVZDQg50L5F8zha5fvPEThxP1XM1qLGmLwA&e= >> >> #2 As an "outlying thinker," you will need to learn about Leibniz. All in >> due time. >> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ama >> zon.com_Leibniz-2DIntellectual-2DMaria-2DRosa-2DAntognazza_ >> dp_1107627613&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_ >> 5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m= >> GHCgWRTvDK4nxxOO9mUcZOXeKqbTrkLmHYR2JQzUcdQ&s=aSiHYiwqsVcVrV >> R5hyEV7NBzagdNR_GJoX2mOvp4VEQ&e= >> >> #3 Without McLuhan, there is no "up-to-date" regarding technology. Also a >> topic for future elaboration. >> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ama >> zon.com_Understanding-2DMedia-2DExtensions-2DMarshall- >> 2DMcLuhan_dp_1584230738&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4 >> uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgj >> O2gOz4-A&m=GHCgWRTvDK4nxxOO9mUcZOXeKqbTrkLmHYR2JQzUcdQ&s= >> QWaAiedWWRHK_bXLzdPPeeVtFOcVHHiFpuDwZGwgB1k&e= >> >> --> What you didn't address is the biological process for *destroying* >> "equipose" (i.e. "progress," "communism" &c) and its relationship to >> "mutation" (and/or other processes, like cancer, for instance) . . . !! >> >> Mark >> >> Quoting JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>: >> >> .....Oh, and no, I have not read Leibnitz, just little snippets here and >>> there.....to be honest, as long as the thinking is related to biology as >>> Lego Blocks (descriptive) it is unfortunately immaterial to my way of >>> thinking because it reflects the logical construct being used......I liken >>> it to the difference between Newtonian Gravity theory v Einsteinian, the >>> former describing the attraction of bodies, the latter that gravity is due >>> to the distortion of space-time. Like Twain said,“The difference between >>> the *almost right* word and the *right* word is really a large matter. >>> ’tis >>> >>> the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.”😀 >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 6:26 AM, JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>> >>> Mark, nice to meet a true 'son of Madison'. I only knew transients from >>>> Michigan State and University of Chicago in my brief post-doctoral >>>> stint. I >>>> worked with Jack Gorski, the biochemist who discovered the estrogen >>>> receptor.......my work on the effect of cortisol on lung development was >>>> buoyed by such science for the next 20 years. Madison was an interesting >>>> transition from my MSc/PhD in Experimental Medicine, taught by the >>>> discoverers of cortisol, aldosterone and prolactin, and Hans Selye, the >>>> clinician-scientist who coined the term 'stress' while at McGill, a >>>> bastion >>>> of Eurocentnrism, back to the US en route to Harvard (from which I was >>>> thrown out after 15 years of hard labor), which may explain my own >>>> worldview academically, which is quite eclectic, but in a very different >>>> way from yours. I have spent 50+ years doing the science of the >>>> establishment, chasing my tail studying physiologic mechanisms and >>>> chasing >>>> my intellectual tail, always in the hope of 'linearizing' the story by >>>> latching on to a tale that would take me from the superficial and mundane >>>> to the fundamental......what else would I have expected, given that a >>>> simple molecule like cortisol could flip a switch and save life at its >>>> inception- the implementation of cortisol for prevention of the death of >>>> preterm infants was profoundly inspiring, to this day. But as I had said, >>>> it made no 'logical' sense that hormones would or should have anything to >>>> do with lungs....but now it makes all the sense in the world; I just >>>> hadda >>>> turn the whole process around 180 degrees, at least for my own 'sanity'. >>>> >>>> So to your question about the biological relevance of Communism, I start >>>> with the premise that multicellular organisms evolved through metabolic >>>> cooperativity, so 'from each according to their abilities, to each >>>> according to their needs' makes sense as an operational principle. I >>>> think >>>> that all fell apart in the transition from Hunter Gatherers to >>>> agriculture >>>> and ownership of land, acting as a driver for human avarice and greed >>>> instead of cooperativity. There is a biological underpinning to that in >>>> the >>>> transition from hunting/gathering to agriculture due to the ready source >>>> of >>>> food year round increasing subcutaneous fat, producing the hormone >>>> leptin, >>>> which promotes the 'arborization' of the brain, the formation of >>>> ever-increasing numbers of synapses. That mechanism usurped the gut-brain >>>> mechanism by which food would distend the gut, increasing leptin and >>>> ghrelin production by the gut, affecting brain development along a >>>> different trajectory from the steady infusion of leptin provided by the >>>> fat >>>> depot. There are those who say that the dominance of the CNS over the gut >>>> brain has been our undoing, and I think that's correct in that the CNS >>>> mechanism tends to lend itself to neuroticisms that the gut-brain doesn't >>>> due to the abstractions of the CNS vs the pragmatism of the gut, if you >>>> get >>>> my drift. Along these lines, there was an interesting paper (Cochran G, >>>> Hardy J, Harpending H. Natural history of Ashkenazi intelligence. J >>>> Biosoc >>>> Sci. 2006 Sep;38(5):659-93) the hypothesis of which was that Ashkenazi >>>> Jews >>>> have higher IQs, but an excess of neurodegenerative diseases, and that >>>> this >>>> is an example of balancing selection, too much of a good thing being a >>>> bad >>>> thing, myelinization of neurons increasing IQ but too much leading to >>>> pathology. >>>> >>>> But I digress. Not to 'chest beat' too much on my part, but I find it >>>> energizing in my 8th decade to think that a) maybe we got it wrong, and >>>> b) >>>> how can we 'fix' it, given what we're doing to ourselves and our planet. >>>> As >>>> I had said previously, my sense is that what I have stumbled onto is the >>>> realization that what we think of as evolution are all >>>> epiphenomena........the so-called complexity of life is actually a >>>> by-product of the core mission of life, to maintain and sustain its >>>> originating ability to remain at equipoise, like the Red Queen, which >>>> sounds counterintuitive because we are using the wrong intuition. BTW, my >>>> idea that Quantum Mechanics is highly relevant to biology, but hasn't >>>> been >>>> integrated with it for lack of the right perspective, i.e. that the >>>> Cosmos >>>> and biology emerged from the same Singularity/Big Bang, so that's the way >>>> in which Pauli, Heisenberg, non-localization, coherence have to be viewed >>>> biologically......then it works, at least in my simplistic way of >>>> understanding those two domains. And that sits at the core of the problem >>>> in the sense that our system of logic is founded on the way in which we >>>> understand how and why we exist; given that, if we got it backwards, of >>>> course we would have inherent problems in our personal comportment and >>>> that >>>> of the societies that we constitute. We're still stuck with Descartes >>>> (witness Hameroff and Penrose fixated on microtubules in the brain, when >>>> there are microtubules in the viscera too!) and Michaelangelo's Vitruvian >>>> Man when we should be devising ways of reintegrating our big brains in a >>>> more holistically win-win way. Have you read Jeremy Rifkin's "The >>>> Empathic >>>> Civilization". In it he makes this same plea, if only..... >>>> >>>> Again, hubris and braggadocio aside, what I have offered is a step-wise, >>>> scientifically-based means of devconvoluting our own evolution in a way >>>> that is 'testable and refutable', linking physics and biology together >>>> mechanistically for the first time. That relationship is buildable- I >>>> have >>>> suggested merging the Elemental Periodic Table with a Periodic Table of >>>> Biology to form an algorithm for all of the natural sciences....what a >>>> dynamic search engine that would be. I just have to figure out how to >>>> mathematically express evolution....Work in Progress. But of course I am >>>> curious as to how all of this 'fits' with what makes the hair on the back >>>> of *your* neck stand up? Because CRISPER and AI aren't our salvation, >>>> >>>> they're just more of the same ambiguity/deception paradigm as far as I am >>>> concerned......John >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 2:15 AM, Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> John: >>>>> >>>>> This is *all* very exciting -- as in skin-tingly, even more than >>>>> head-shaking (and, yes, mine was going up-down, not side-to-side) . . . >>>>> <g> >>>>> >>>>> I grew up in Madison, where both of my parents were on the UW faculty. >>>>> Madison West then undergraduate 1966-70, followed by a brief stint at >>>>> UofChicago Divinity School (for a rare deferment, when only "ministers" >>>>> escaped the draft lottery), then back to Madison for a year in a PhD >>>>> program in Molecular Biology, which was aborted by the collapse of >>>>> NSF-funding post-Vietnam. Then I moved to NYC in 1972 and started an >>>>> early >>>>> mini-computer software company (while playing "revolutionary" and >>>>> studying >>>>> Renaissance history &c) -- which was the basis of my later career on >>>>> Wall >>>>> Street &c. >>>>> >>>>> "Genetics" seemed to me to be barking-up-the-wrong-tree with its >>>>> over-emphasis on DNA (and "information," trying to equate life to >>>>> computation) -- which meant I was looking for epi-genetics before that >>>>> was >>>>> quite a thing yet. Marshall McLuhan, as it turns out, is *all* about >>>>> psycho-technological environments and our "adaptation" to them >>>>> (although, >>>>> for various reasons, he never elaborated a "psychology," which is what >>>>> we >>>>> are now doing at the Center, with Aristotle's help.) >>>>> >>>>> I suspect that what you mean by "consciousness" -- say at the >>>>> cellular-level -- is what Aristotle meant by the "soul" (aka >>>>> *entelechy*) >>>>> and what Leibniz meant by "monad." Have you had a chance to look at >>>>> Leibniz in this way? >>>>> >>>>> Throughout, this "being-at-work-staying-itself" (as Joe Sachs translates >>>>> it), is in conflict with the urge to dissolve that "individuality" (i.e. >>>>> Freud's "oceanic feeling" and the various "mysticisms") by trying to >>>>> "be-something-else-destroying-yourself" which, in theological terms, is >>>>> called *gnosticism* (aka "self-deification.") Btw, this was Plato's >>>>> "World >>>>> Soul" and it was directly in conflict with Aristotle (yes, his most >>>>> famous >>>>> student), much as Spinoza's *pantheism* was in conflict with Leibniz. >>>>> >>>>> This anti-balance, get-me-outta-here, clean-things-up urge (shown in >>>>> Voltaire's satire of Leibniz's best-of-all-possible-worlds) -- giving >>>>> rise >>>>> to English "Puritanism," and thus the USA-as-proto-Eden (being >>>>> celebrated >>>>> today, as it was in Joni Mitchell's "Woodstock" lyric, "We gotta get >>>>> back >>>>> to the Garden"), as well as "Communism" (via F. Engels and his German >>>>> "puritanism"), speaking of ironies -- likely also has a "biological" >>>>> explanation, which I'd be very curious to hear your thoughts about >>>>> (perhaps >>>>> linked to "mutation") . . . !! >>>>> >>>>> Mark >>>>> >>>>> P.S. Eventually, we'll also have to drag the Chinese into all this and, >>>>> in particular, Daoism and the Yijing -- since, in the world today, >>>>> theirs >>>>> is a much more dynamic (and coherent) "sphere" than the West, in which >>>>> the >>>>> *balance* we are describing is institutionalized in the Communist Party >>>>> of >>>>> China (once again, noting the irony involved) -- all of which developed >>>>> under *very* different psycho-technological conditions, with a writing >>>>> system (i.e. the key to human self-aware "consciousness") radically >>>>> unlike >>>>> our alphabetic one. >>>>> >>>>> P.P.S All of this is what some call "outlying thinking" (without a >>>>> "home" >>>>> since the 13th-century). I remember one day when I was participating >>>>> in a >>>>> National Academy of Science meeting when the chairman described me to >>>>> the >>>>> group as a "very unusual scholar" (and, no, I wasn't invited back). >>>>> Aristotle was Greek but he wasn't Athenian -- which meant that he had to >>>>> leave twice, his Lyceum school was outside the city-walls and in 307BC >>>>> his >>>>> followers were banished, taking up in Rhodes and then largely >>>>> disappearing. Likewise, Leibniz was almost completely expunged after >>>>> his >>>>> death, then mocked by Voltaire (on behalf of Newton &al) and slandered >>>>> by >>>>> Bertrand Russell. There is something psycho-technological about trying >>>>> to >>>>> "expel" the approach we are taking -- raising questions, as Spengler >>>>> would >>>>> put it about "Man and Technics" as well as the current drive to "merge" >>>>> humanity with the robots (aka, Ray Kurzweil &al's hoped-for >>>>> "Singularity.") >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Quoting JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Lonny, interesting comment about what I assume you mean is the >>>>> ability >>>>> >>>>>> of individuals to 'fit' with their environment, cultural and >>>>>> otherwise. I >>>>>> think that becomes particularly relevant in the context of the cell as >>>>>> the >>>>>> first Niche Construction (see attached), or how the organism integrates >>>>>> with its environment as a function of its internal 'resources' >>>>>> .......or >>>>>> not. I am thinking of identical twins, for example, whom we know don't >>>>>> share the same epigenomes. Deconvoluting all of that would surely help >>>>>> us >>>>>> better understand what makes us 'tick'. John >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 7:24 PM, Lonny Meinecke < >>>>>> [log in to unmask]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi John and Mark, >>>>>> >>>>>>> I am following your discussion with interest... thank you both for >>>>>>> this >>>>>>> thread. I like the term endogenization. A curious thing about each >>>>>>> individual carrying the environment around inside, is that the common >>>>>>> world >>>>>>> is unlikely to be the same as each private version. These often seem >>>>>>> substitutes for the external, when that unaffectable commons becomes >>>>>>> untenable (or inaccessible) to the creatures that must somehow dwell >>>>>>> in >>>>>>> it >>>>>>> anyway. >>>>>>> --Lonny >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ############################ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 ############################ 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