Gregg: This is where Merlin Donald -- now retired (and a friend of the Center), previously a well-regarded evolutionary neuro-psychologist -- comes in. We'll discuss his book when you get back (and others have had a chance to read it, if they are so inclined). https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Origins-2DModern-2DMind-2DEvolution-2DCognition_dp_0674644840&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=1cMGoLVS17juT_j8XCzJYSq7yJ4epl-7qbOfj_aonRQ&s=m4nF8ExbJHWaGt0Kemv1SCcFuZeUPo20fIrTN7HA8is&e= As it turns out, when I first met him 20+ years ago in the back of a campus bus at Rutgers, Merlin's life's-work began when he was in High School, where he was taught Marshall McLuhan about how technologies *change* our mentalities. He later read Julian Jaynes (for whom I was his last student) and then built his career on the combination of the two. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Origin-2DConsciousness-2DBreakdown-2DBicameral-2DMind_dp_0618057072&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=1cMGoLVS17juT_j8XCzJYSq7yJ4epl-7qbOfj_aonRQ&s=Yb44r1mRWTlqn3qmJrMdwOYcyivyJzspAc84XN4jow4&e= Mark P.S. Perhaps the best way to grok what I'm up to is to take a look at the online library for my Center. Donald, Jaynes and McLuhan (along with some others, including my two "godfathers") are on the "Basic Texts" list. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.digitallife.center_index.php_research_library&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=1cMGoLVS17juT_j8XCzJYSq7yJ4epl-7qbOfj_aonRQ&s=W3FvXnFpuRTDRTLk3GKdItxQsS179RRNFWcKUlU3fmU&e= Quoting "Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx" <[log in to unmask]>: > Cool conversations. > > One point about the ToK definitions of Life and Mind. Life, the > dimension of biological complexity, forms between 4.5 billion and > 700,000,000 years ago, probably starting on planet earth around 4 > bil yrs ago (see John’s comments about lipids and SR/SO). > Multicelled plants emerged by 700 mil yrs. > > Mind, in the ToK language game, is defined as ‘the set of mental > behavior’ corresponds to the behavior of an animal as a whole > mediated by the brain/nervous system. It begins to emerge 650 mil y > ago, and the whole of the nonhuman animal mental complexity is on > planet earth 5 mil yrs ago. > > It is important to note that my definition of Mind is different from > human self-consciousness. The primate Mind serves as a base out of > which human self consciousness, human language, remain giving and > Culture emerges. Culture is clearly in swing by 50,000 years ago. It > has been accelerating since, especially since agriculture, writing > and more modern developments. > > My last day at the beach. Tomorrow is travel, and then back in full > swing attempting to advance the project of promoting wisdom. > > Best, > G > > > Sent from my iPad > >> On Jul 11, 2018, at 12:38 PM, Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> Nancy: >> >> That depends on what you mean by MIND . . . !! >> >> Many would like to say that a paramecium has "cognition" (which is >> then equated, in some sense, with MIND) -- but is that really >> something useful to say? >> >> You might like to read Merlin Donald's "The Origin of the Modern >> Mind" (only $6 in hardback, with shipping). In it he traces the >> changes in human "mentality' from our origins and, while, in some >> sense, it is all "mind," what we do with our own minds today would >> not have been possible before literacy -- which is only 2500 years >> old. >> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Origins-2DModern-2DMind-2DEvolution-2DCognition_dp_0674644840&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=NikUTqVk_ElNDZNrQsPeJbSxBxMktxhvuMcFcbVwdUo&s=mS0oag2BV_xZMUu5htW2Edjad1fuqR9qCv7vNnz7BZQ&e= >> >> The "evolution" in the subtitle isn't *biological* (in either the >> Darwinian or Larmarckian sense). Instead, it depends on what many >> call "neuro-plasticity" and the fact that out of perhaps >> 200,000,000 neurons in our neo-cortex, each with perhaps 20,000 >> possible "connections" (making around 2 *trillion* possible links), >> we should note that some neurologists think only 100,000 or so >> actually matter in our lives. Accordingly, we aren't all the >> "same" -- going back a long ways. >> >> My guess is that it is the "endogenization" of our environment -- >> particularly before puberty -- that largely "decides" what sort of >> a MIND we will have. >> >> Gregg generously starts his MIND at roughly 5.8 *million* years >> ago. Our species is typically thought to be roughly 200,000 years >> old, so, for Gregg, MIND isn't strictly "human" (let alone >> "modern") but it also isn't as old as LIFE (which he pegs at 700 >> *million* years ago). That said, if Psychology is the study of >> "souls" (aka *psyche* in Greek), as per Aristotle -- not just the >> "modern mind" -- then it looks like we have some terminology to >> straighten out . . . <g> >> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_File-3AToK-5FSimple.jpg&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=NikUTqVk_ElNDZNrQsPeJbSxBxMktxhvuMcFcbVwdUo&s=j6AYMod7CzZXsWl3-JWfaqURfNGnNysouCiySPFL4YE&e= >> >> Mark >> >> Quoting Nancy Link <[log in to unmask]>: >> >>> Dear fellow TOKers, >>> >>> From my vantage point on my iPhone at the cottage on Georgian Bay >>> amidst my son’s wedding and the arrival of my daughter’s first >>> child, I have been reading the current discussion, especially >>> between John and Mark, with considerable interest and some dismay. >>> >>> Interest because I think that the principles that govern biology >>> are the foundational to the principles will govern the material >>> that we social scientists work with. Dismay because I realize that >>> many of the concepts that John and Mark raise are simply beyond >>> me. They stem from my knowledge base that will never be mine. I >>> would retire from the field altogether were it not for the >>> suspicion that the way we are trying to build knowledge will not >>> work. We (and here I am speaking about the whole academic >>> enterprise) are focusing too narrowly on domain specific concepts >>> and missing the overview. >>> >>> We must find a way through this. I think that one of the things >>> that draws us together is the notion of Gregg’s joint points. It >>> gives us a way of thinking about what we’re doing at a more >>> general level. It is certainly the thing that draws me to his >>> system. >>> >>> As I understand causality, it is fairly clear in the hard sciences >>> like chemistry and physics use causality to explain their >>> findings. It also seems to me that causality can be used in >>> biology because evolutionary theory creates an explanatory >>> framework. Causality really falls apart though at the Life-Mind >>> joint point and the Mind-Culture joint point. Here we get into >>> what I call list thinking. We can articulate a bunch of factors >>> that are contributing to the change but we can’t describe how >>> these factors systematically interrelate. Biology has the >>> potential to offer insights into the way that complexity develops >>> because it looks at less complex species and examines how they >>> become more complex. Many of us are interested in looking at that >>> very complex species, humans. Can biology help us social >>> scientists better comprehend the transition at the Life-Mind joint >>> point? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Nancy >>> >>> From: tree of knowledge system discussion >>> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on >>> behalf of JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> >>> Reply-To: tree of knowledge system discussion >>> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> >>> Date: Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 11:02 AM >>> To: >>> "[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>" >>> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> >>> Subject: Re: New Paradigms >>> >>> Mark, thanks for the replies......I'd like to respond again by >>> interjecting into your words in brackets for efficiency and >>> fluidity.... >>> >>> I appreciate your dedication to the *endogenization* of our >>> "environment" and have been fascinated with Lamarck/Lysenko &al >>> since I started to study them in the 1960s -- so thanks for >>> repeating your understanding of these approaches (and reminding us >>> how they aren't a part of the neo-Darwinian synthesis) . . . !! >>> >>> [Again, my lab is funded by the NIH to study the Lamarckian >>> inheritance of asthma, so I have 'first hand' knowledge of the >>> reality of that process] >>> >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Lynn-5FMargulis&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=Y8KO0_6qENanYCuwl-GukBV2QaDkJud5R4jxUGi0Ojw&s=07rBAG1oHMNUzOwr8zTH4IZiClwBp3W6CsM_LGMMHtU&e= >>> >>> That said, however similar sugar molecules may be for a paramecium >>> and a human, the *organisms* involved clearly are not the same -- >>> at the "level" of MIND and CULTURE. In fact, the environment that >>> we are "endogenizing" isn't one of only carbohydrate fuels but >>> also includes much more. In particular it includes various >>> technologies, such as human language (for which has no clear >>> "evolutionary" origin) &c. >>> >>> [But that's exactly the point.......the paramecia 'ingests' what >>> is pertinent to its reality, and we do the same. In a paper of >>> mine on 'Phenotype as Agent' I have made the observation that what >>> we think of as phenotype descriptively is actually the offspring >>> expressing epigenetically inherited traits that foster the >>> environmentally relevant behaviors that will a) allow the organism >>> to adapt to its current environment, and b) foster further >>> 'knowledge' of the ever-changing environment in an on-going >>> manner, iteratively. And by the way, the effect of cigarette smoke >>> on the asthma phenotype (our research) is of interest in this vein >>> because the molecular effect of nicotine, the proxy for smoke, >>> which is composed of 3,000 substances, is to stimulate the >>> Nicotinic Receptors in the smooth muscle of the upper airway, >>> causing increased calcium flux in response to stimuli such as cold >>> air and particulates, making the muscle more 'twitchy'. >>> Importantly, the same effect is seen in the brain, where increased >>> calcium flux increases short-term memory. This is what is referred >>> to as epistasis, or balancing selection. It would explain why >>> people continue to smoke, despite all of the attendant pathologies] >>> >>> My interest in "paradigms" -- as defined by Thomas Kuhn -- is also >>> "environmental" and, indeed, focuses on how we "internalize" them >>> but at a different level in the "ToK Stack." Aristotle had one >>> environment to "endogenize." Newton had another. So, did >>> Einstein &c. What interests me is how the "internalizations" of >>> their own environments (alas something we can't do, pointing to >>> the core problem with our accounts of history) affected the >>> problems they encountered and the solutions they proposed. >>> >>> [Agreed. I think of the emerging data showing that identical twins >>> are not epigenetically identical, for example, and I had mentioned >>> my take on Piaget's way of thinking about the stages of childhood >>> development in service to our big brains. In actuality, the stages >>> facilitate the acquisition of epigenetic marks in a way that is >>> opportune for the individual. And the stages of the life cycle are >>> similarly different in length and depth as a function of the >>> endocrine system of the individual since it is now known to be >>> under the influence of epigenetics too. Lewis Wolpert, the >>> developmental biologist has famously said that gastrulation is the >>> most important thing you'll do during the course of your life. >>> That was based on the fact that it is at that phase of embryologic >>> development that the mesoderm, the germ layer between the endoderm >>> and ectoderm is introduced, and is critically important for more >>> complex physiologic traits. We now know that the mechanism of >>> gastrulation is affected by epigenetics, so Wolpert was prescient >>> in identifying the significance of gastrulation!] >>> >>> I suspect that your research on the "lower" level of LIFE is quite >>> relevant -- analogously, if not "mechanistically" -- to what >>> happens in CULTURE. This raises the question of how to describe >>> that environment for *culture* in a way that yields useful >>> "explanations" (even if they aren't sufficiently "mechanistic" for >>> your taste) about how they are "endogenized." >>> >>> [With all due respect, if in fact culture is the net result of our >>> endogenization of our environment as Niche Construction, then it >>> is homologous, i.e. coming from the same origin. That would allow >>> for much more in depth understanding of the mechanisms involved in >>> the 'web of life' at every scope and scale. Culture, like all of >>> life, is not an 'add on', it is what Andy Clark the psychologist >>> refers to as the extended mind] >>> >>> That's where Marshall McLuhan comes in. His 1964 "Understanding >>> Media" attempts to do just that -- as reflected in the title of >>> its first chapter, "The Medium is the Message." When Gregg gets >>> back, we'll launch into a discussion of McLuhan's contribution to >>> see if it is useful for understanding what we are up to today. >>> >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Understanding-2DMedia-2DExtensions-2DMarshall-2DMcLuhan_dp_1584230738&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=Y8KO0_6qENanYCuwl-GukBV2QaDkJud5R4jxUGi0Ojw&s=gLATW7zM7nr6vrYPE2_cFvecHwxbkbmR_xqF3GaWLNQ&e= >>> >>> Accordingly, since my interests are largely at the "upper" end of >>> the stack -- even though I've spent many years studying the >>> "lower" ones -- I have built a Center that is attempting to expand >>> McLuhan's 1950s/60s insights into the 21st century. We are also >>> here to help Gregg accomplish his goals for the ToK Society (yes, >>> for which, this is the mailing-list). >>> >>> www.digitallife.center >>> >>> [I would like to delve into McLuhan based on my vertical >>> integration if you see value added? Do you think that connecting >>> the dots between physiology, environment and culture would be >>> helpful? Instructive? Illuminate aspects of McCluhan that are >>> 'novel'? 'McCluhan, Lamarck and Stahlman walk into a bar'???] >>> >>> Mark >>> >>> P.S. To my knowledge, no one has ever succeeded in illustrating >>> how biological evolution is the *same* (in "mechanistic" terms) as >>> "social evolution." Many have tried but they all seem to have >>> failed. Importantly, as best I can tell, Lynn Margulis wisely >>> didn't get into that topic (although she did weigh in on the 9/11 >>> conspiracy). Instead, what seems to have been adopted by many are >>> various schemes typically called "co-evolution," in which society >>> (and technology) "co-evolves" with the our biological species >>> (which, in practical terms, just means "social evolution.") Kevin >>> Kelly (the first editor of Wired magazine) is a particularly >>> notable person in that field. Perhaps some of this work would >>> also be of use for the ToK Society . . . ?? >>> >>> [Well if my homology between Nick Christakis's networking model of >>> human society and Niche Construction is correct, that would be the >>> basis for biologic and social evolution being one and the same, >>> wouldn't it? In Jared Diamond's book 'Collapse' he shows how >>> successful societies have lived with their environments, which >>> exemplifies the advantage of being in sync with ones evolutionary >>> arc. But there's not much else out there...yet] >>> >>> Thanks for the dialog....John >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 7:20 AM, Mark Stahlman >>> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: >>> John: >>> >>> I appreciate your dedication to the *endogenization* of our >>> "environment" and have been fascinated with Lamarck/Lysenko &al >>> since I started to study them in the 1960s -- so thanks for >>> repeating your understanding of these approaches (and reminding us >>> how they aren't a part of the neo-Darwinian synthesis) . . . !! >>> >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Lynn-5FMargulis&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=Y8KO0_6qENanYCuwl-GukBV2QaDkJud5R4jxUGi0Ojw&s=07rBAG1oHMNUzOwr8zTH4IZiClwBp3W6CsM_LGMMHtU&e= >>> >>> That said, however similar sugar molecules may be for a paramecium >>> and a human, the *organisms* involved clearly are not the same -- >>> at the "level" of MIND and CULTURE. In fact, the environment that >>> we are "endogenizing" isn't one of only carbohydrate fuels but >>> also includes much more. In particular it includes various >>> technologies, such as human language (for which has no clear >>> "evolutionary" origin) &c. >>> >>> My interest in "paradigms" -- as defined by Thomas Kuhn -- is also >>> "environmental" and, indeed, focuses on how we "internalize" them >>> but at a different level in the "ToK Stack." Aristotle had one >>> environment to "endogenize." Newton had another. So, did >>> Einstein &c. What interests me is how the "internalizations" of >>> their own environments (alas something we can't do, pointing to >>> the core problem with our accounts of history) affected the >>> problems they encountered and the solutions they proposed. >>> >>> I suspect that your research on the "lower" level of LIFE is quite >>> relevant -- analogously, if not "mechanistically" -- to what >>> happens in CULTURE. This raises the question of how to describe >>> that environment for *culture* in a way that yields useful >>> "explanations" (even if they aren't sufficiently "mechanistic" for >>> your taste) about how they are "endogenized." >>> >>> That's where Marshall McLuhan comes in. His 1964 "Understanding >>> Media" attempts to do just that -- as reflected in the title of >>> its first chapter, "The Medium is the Message." When Gregg gets >>> back, we'll launch into a discussion of McLuhan's contribution to >>> see if it is useful for understanding what we are up to today. >>> >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Understanding-2DMedia-2DExtensions-2DMarshall-2DMcLuhan_dp_1584230738&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=Y8KO0_6qENanYCuwl-GukBV2QaDkJud5R4jxUGi0Ojw&s=gLATW7zM7nr6vrYPE2_cFvecHwxbkbmR_xqF3GaWLNQ&e= >>> >>> Accordingly, since my interests are largely at the "upper" end of >>> the stack -- even though I've spent many years studying the >>> "lower" ones -- I have built a Center that is attempting to expand >>> McLuhan's 1950s/60s insights into the 21st century. We are also >>> here to help Gregg accomplish his goals for the ToK Society (yes, >>> for which, this is the mailing-list). >>> >>> www.digitallife.center >>> >>> Mark >>> >>> P.S. To my knowledge, no one has ever succeeded in illustrating >>> how biological evolution is the *same* (in "mechanistic" terms) as >>> "social evolution." Many have tried but they all seem to have >>> failed. Importantly, as best I can tell, Lynn Margulis wisely >>> didn't get into that topic (although she did weigh in on the 9/11 >>> conspiracy). Instead, what seems to have been adopted by many are >>> various schemes typically called "co-evolution," in which society >>> (and technology) "co-evolves" with the our biological species >>> (which, in practical terms, just means "social evolution.") Kevin >>> Kelly (the first editor of Wired magazine) is a particularly >>> notable person in that field. Perhaps some of this work would >>> also be of use for the ToK Society . . . ?? >>> >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_CoEvolution-5FQuarterly&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=Y8KO0_6qENanYCuwl-GukBV2QaDkJud5R4jxUGi0Ojw&s=Ry24gsV5__DzdGAibX51Oms8CNBP5pW4hg82V-ObIQA&e= >>> >>> Quoting JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>: >>> >>> Dear Waldemar & TOKers, thank you for asking me to define the paradigm I am >>> referencing in my comments. Suffice it to say that my body of work on >>> cell-cell signaling and evolutionary biology (80ish papers and counting) is >>> all in the peer-reviewed literature, based largely on my research career of >>> 50 year's duration as a working scientist funded continunously to the >>> present day by the NIH and other agencies. About ten years ago it dawned on >>> me that I had enough information to put together a cellular-molecular model >>> of the lung alveolus, which I published; in so doing I became aware of the >>> fact that the model allowed me to trace the process of gas exchange >>> backwards in space and time phylogenetically because the alveolar cellular >>> pathways are highly conserved, though the phenotype of the alveolus changes >>> in a well documented pattern by which the size of the alveolus decreases in >>> order to increase the surface area-to-blood volume ratio, thus increasing >>> the exchange of oxygen for metabolic demand as vertebrates evolved (hope >>> that was clear). In tandem, the surfactant that is necessary to reduce the >>> surface tension of the alveoli had to evolve or the alveoli would collapse >>> due to the diminishing size of the alveoli, so there is a biochemical >>> process that can be traced backwards in order to determine the evolutionary >>> changes at the molecular level...... Tracing that process backwards, I >>> arrived at the point where cholesterol, the most primitive surfactant, was >>> 'inserted' into the cell membrane of unicellular eukaryotes, our ancestors. >>> Since cholesterol is a ubiquitous component of the surfactant system I had >>> a way to tie the biochemical and structural changes in the alveolus over >>> the course of evolution, enabling me to 'see' the process of evolution in >>> the forward direction mechanistically for the first time, aided by the >>> process of lung development, which recapitulates the phylogenetic changes >>> (Haeckle's 'Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny'). And because the molecular >>> mechanisms of lung evolution are common to other tissues and organs, I was >>> able to assemble a model of vertebrate physiologic evolution, beginning >>> with the organelles of unicellular organisms, all of which derive from the >>> cell membrane (Torday and Rehan. Evolution, the Logic of Biology. Wiley, >>> 2012). More importantly, Lynn Margulis's Endogenization Theory, that >>> evolution is a consequence of the internalization of the external >>> environment, could be demonstrated based on the cellular molecular approach >>> I have described, merging the two concepts in a novel way to explain the >>> process of evolution mechanistically from its unicellular origins >>> *forward *.The >>> >>> commonalities within and between all organisms evolutionarily ultimately >>> led me to conclude that consciousness is actually the aggregate of the >>> endogenization of the external environment, nominally to form the >>> physiologic system, but taken together, is how and why we are aware of >>> ourselves and our surroundings, i.e. consciousness is integral to our >>> physiologic being, not a thing apart from us, either all being in our heads >>> (Freud, Jung), or a manifestation of the external world (Plato), or some >>> combination thereof (James, Chalmers, Clark) but one and the same as the >>> Cosmos. So the process by which a paramecium knows there's a sugar source >>> in its environment, mediated by calcium flow within its cytoplasm is no >>> different from putting sugar on my tongue tasting sweet to my brain, which >>> is admittedly a more complex process, but still reduces to calcium flows. >>> Ultimately, the reason that the first cell formed as lipids in water >>> derived from the snowball-like asteroids that pelted the primitive Earth is >>> because it was Self-referential and Self-organizing, the template for which >>> was the Singularity of the Big Bang, offering a continuum from the >>> Singularity to the evolution of life on Earth. That homology between matter >>> and organic life is the first 'joint' in Gregg's ToK, and each subsequent >>> joint can be understood mechanistically in my opinion by using the >>> cell-molecular approach I have described. The advantage of this mechanistic >>> understanding of the ToK is that is scientifically testable/refutable, >>> predictive, and offers the opportunity to connect various 'traits' both >>> within and between levels of the ToK that would otherwise remain >>> descriptive. So for example, because it has been hypothesized that the >>> unicell was the first so-called Niche Construction, i.e. the endogenization >>> of the environment , it telescopes from the origins of life to >>> multi-leveled ecologies, beginning with small communities, towns, cities, >>> States, Nations, Gaia based on the same principle of Niche Construction, >>> the ability of organisms to form their own immediate environments- 'First >>> there were bacteria, now there is New York!' (Simon Conway Morris). >>> >>> I hope that was helpful in explaining my position vis a vis the ToK. I see >>> value added in this way of thinking about the ToK that is untenable based >>> on conventional descriptive biology. I welcome your comments, criticisms >>> and questions. I am here to serve as best I can. >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 12:35 PM, Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD < >>> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: >>> >>> A suggestion: >>> >>> Perhaps, it would help if we had a brief definition, statement, or >>> synopsis, of what: >>> >>> 1. John considers to be the central nature of the >>> paradigm he is proposing. >>> 2. Mark considers to be the central nature of: a. The new >>> paradigm in which we find ourselves and b. The previous/old paradigm which >>> was replaced by the new paradigm. >>> >>> That way we could be reassured that we are reading, thinking, talking, and >>> writing about the same things. >>> >>> Best regards to all, >>> >>> Waldemar >>> >>> Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD >>> (Perseveret et Percipiunt) >>> Sent from my iPad >>> >>>> On Jul 10, 2018, at 10:54 AM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx < >>> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi All, >>>> Thanks much for the stimulating contributions. I will offer some >>> thoughts soon, so that perhaps we can sort out where it is where we are >>> standing, both as a group and as individuals who have all been on long and >>> intense journeys trying to figure out some of the most complex problems in >>> philosophy. I think we all have interesting things to say. >>>> >>>> Warm regards to all! >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> G >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPad >>>> >>>>> On Jul 10, 2018, at 1:16 PM, Diop, Corinne Joan Martin - diopcj < >>> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Mark, >>>>> >>>>> Thank you-- and thank you also for the correction! Cantor has emerged >>> again in a small body of work I am doing on people named Georg(e/es), so I >>> will be sure to look into this intrigue before exhibiting/writing about it >>> again! (The others are Braque, Gurdjieff and Sand...) >>>>> >>>>> Corinne >>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>> From: tree of knowledge system discussion >>>>> [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>. >>> edu] on behalf of Mark Stahlman >>> [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] >>>>> Sent: Monday, July 9, 2018 2:04 PM >>>>> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> >>>>> Subject: Re: New Paradigms >>>>> >>>>> Corrine: >>>>> >>>>> Thanks -- fascinating and beautifully done . . . !! >>>>> >>>>> Small correction, if you don't mind. Galileo's astronomy didn't >>>>> really "threaten" anything and his problems with the Church were quite >>>>> different from the usual accounts, having more to with his anti-Rome >>>>> Venetian backers (btw, my "godfather" Giorgio Desantillana wrote the >>>>> one-time "definitive" work on the topic and my father helped to design >>>>> what is now the Galileo Museum in Florence) and it was Cantor who >>>>> approached Franzelin, who pretty much blew him off (i.e. the Church >>>>> really didn't care what he was doing). >>>>> >>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www. >>> amazon.com_Crime-2DGalileo-2DGiorgio-2DSantillana_dp_ >>> 0226734811&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r= >>> HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m= >>> 8qMQODcDkzHIMIPWHwejYDRD8zDMlzuSjEgeHBa8lGA&s=Bfq1ppMS3XgQnnQpYnIZ8wC_ >>> 97XYRZJRxUuB1rAMdwc&e= >>>>> >>>>> Mark >>>>> >>>>> P.S. The usual reports about G. Bruno's troubles are also mistaken. >>>>> It had little to do with his "heresy." In fact, as best as I can >>>>> tell, he was an "agent" of the English spymaster Walsingham and was >>>>> caught organizing against the Vatican. We often forget how much >>>>> "intrigue" was going on in those days and how often Rome was on the >>>>> receiving end (as well as dishing it out) -- plus how they were >>>>> finally defeated in the mid-19th century after many centuries of >>>>> declining influence. >>>>> >>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en. >>> wikipedia.org_wiki_Francis-5FWalsingham&d=DwIDaQ&c= >>> eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r= >>> HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m= >>> 8qMQODcDkzHIMIPWHwejYDRD8zDMlzuSjEgeHBa8lGA&s= >>> IYy1BIydW2s5dWUnNTYIYOmAhcjKtdkXhsxHKkAcdVo&e= >>>>> >>>>> Quoting "Diop, Corinne Joan Martin - diopcj" >>>>> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> Just sharing some of my artwork that relates a bit :) >>>>>> >>>>>> "Sizing the Infinite, Seeking Eternity," about Georg Cantor was >>>>>> done in collaboration with E. Theta Brown, Associate Professor of Math >>>>>> >>>>>> Cover and pp. 11 – 16. (Photographs and essay.) >>>>>> >>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ >>> kapsula.ca_releases_KAPSULA-5FGOODMEASURE-5F3of3.pdf&d=DwIDaQ&c= >>> eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r= >>> HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m= >>> 8qMQODcDkzHIMIPWHwejYDRD8zDMlzuSjEgeHBa8lGA&s= >>> BwEKKzPLdUHIfojBBcw4PN3O97YYW0fasOi23LN38O0&e= >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Corinne >>>>>> >>>>>> PS I have artwork about Gregg's ideas from some years ago that got >>>>>> buried somewhere in my studio after a move-- when I unearth it I >>>>>> will share! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Corinne Diop >>>>>> Professor of Art >>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www. >>> facebook.com_corinne.diop.studio_&d=DwIDaQ&c= >>> eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r= >>> HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m= >>> 8qMQODcDkzHIMIPWHwejYDRD8zDMlzuSjEgeHBa8lGA&s=KwQnikKeu_aL_ >>> IJaCKzcXiouQheSnbFsIVXtYmyKCZg&e= >>>>>> >>>>>> Photography Area Head >>>>>> http://www.jmu.edu/artandarthistory/programs/Photography.shtml >>>>>> >>>>>> School of Art, Design, and Art History >>>>>> MSC 7101/ 820 S. Main St >>>>>> James Madison University >>>>>> Harrisonburg, VA 22807 >>>>>> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> >>>>>> (540) 568-6485 >>>>>> >>>>>> ************* >>>>>> JMU Safe Zone Member >>>>>> http://www.jmu.edu/safezone >>>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>>> From: tree of knowledge system discussion >>>>>> [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] >>>>>> on behalf of Mark Stahlman >>>>>> [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] >>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 9, 2018 10:13 AM >>>>>> To: >>>>>> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> >>>>>> Subject: New Paradigms >>>>>> >>>>>> John/Joe/Gregg &al: >>>>>> >>>>>> What Gregg has done here may be the *first* time this has ever been >>>>>> accomplished (or perhaps even attempted). While many have >>>>>> "philosophized" over all this, Gregg has actually assembled a group >>>>>> of experts (which decades of detailed knowledge as well as >>>>>> experience arguing with their domain-expert colleagues.) Hurray . . >>>>>> . !! >>>>>> >>>>>> Tree of Knowledge Stack >>>>>> >>>>>> Culture :: Sociology (Joe) >>>>>> Mind :: Psychology (Gregg) >>>>>> Life :: Biology (John) >>>>>> Matter :: Physics (???) >>>>>> >>>>>> Does the "lower" define the "upper" or are there new *principles* >>>>>> that must be added at each level (or what Gregg calls "dimensions of >>>>>> complexity") . . . ?? >>>>>> >>>>>> In the 19th-century, during what was a very different paradigm from >>>>>> the one in which we live Bernhard Reimann suggested what some call >>>>>> the "hypothesis of the higher hypothesis" and Georg Cantor generated >>>>>> his Transfinite schema in attempts to *rigorously* tackle this >>>>>> conundrum. Both of them have largely been forgotten today and this >>>>>> was replaced with the notion of a "Theory of Everything" (ToE) and >>>>>> "Unity of Science" (as per Carnap &al) in the 20th-century -- as a >>>>>> result of the new paradigm in which those scientists lived (but not >>>>>> the same one as ours). >>>>>> >>>>>> "Quantum" physics caught many people's attention and, for a while, >>>>>> seemed to be the answer -- but then it failed to produce a ToE and >>>>>> dissolved into a group of rival splinters until it was revived by >>>>>> some "hippies" who were living under yet-another paradigm (yes, as >>>>>> it turns out, I know Jack Sarfatti and he is an entertaining sorta >>>>>> guy, whose ideas were enhanced by both some LSD and some >>>>>> "conspiracies" that he imagines he was a part of) . . . <g> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www. >>> amazon.com_How-2DHippies-2DSaved-2DPhysics-2DCounterculture_dp_ >>> 039334231X&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r= >>> HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m= >>> 8qMQODcDkzHIMIPWHwejYDRD8zDMlzuSjEgeHBa8lGA&s= >>> z21gNwg3Phhb8zDjPEWwYZZnnuOW0Vep1M486cPwhDQ&e= >>>>>> >>>>>> So much for physics -- but wait there is more! The US *military* >>>>>> decided it wanted to take some Los Alamos bomb-desingers and shuffle >>>>>> them across-the-street to a new place that was called the Santa Fe >>>>>> Institute, to see if the physics of nuclear weapons (i.e. >>>>>> mini-stars) could be applied to society. The Department of Energy >>>>>> (which owns the US arsenal, not the service branches) initially >>>>>> funded them 100% (and now it's 30% with another 30% coming from >>>>>> Pierre Omidyar). >>>>>> >>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www. >>> santafe.edu_&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r= >>> HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m= >>> 8qMQODcDkzHIMIPWHwejYDRD8zDMlzuSjEgeHBa8lGA&s=AWiCJq0W3SGK9QXs99_ >>> ukwq3kcCNbrSUTQmPezjvzTE&e= >>>>>> >>>>>> The result was "complexity science" -- re-branding "chaos," since >>>>>> that frightens the children -- and its elaborate models of >>>>>> "emergence." Some of us from the Center spent last Spring with >>>>>> these folks (in particular, Jim Rutt, long-time chairman and now >>>>>> trustee at Santa Fe) and I can tell you they don't have a clue (and >>>>>> are unlikely to ever get one.) >>>>>> >>>>>> So, Physics as failed (multiple times). How about Biology or >>>>>> Psychology or Sociology? As John tells us, biology is broken. As, >>>>>> Gregg tells us, psychology is broken. As Joe tells us, sociology is >>>>>> broken. So, what are we going to do . . . ?? >>>>>> >>>>>> My suggestion is that we take a look at *paradigms* behind these >>>>>> approaches and their causes/effects. This is the study of the >>>>>> "structure of scientific revolutions" (as per Thomas Kuhn, although >>>>>> he never explained either the causes or effects) and, to accomplish >>>>>> that task, we will need Marshall McLuhan -- which we will do when >>>>>> Gregg returns. >>>>>> >>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www. >>> amazon.com_Structure-2DScientific-2DRevolutions-2D50th-2DAnniversary_dp_ >>> 0226458121&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r= >>> HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m= >>> 8qMQODcDkzHIMIPWHwejYDRD8zDMlzuSjEgeHBa8lGA&s=Wjt2pfZZFEZZ8hHd1Gi8N- >>> e6L0fJp0jNpkVaXTqhbOw&e= >>>>>> >>>>>> To do this, we will have to do something that has been "forgotten" >>>>>> for 400+ years -- understand *formal* cause. Fortunately, Aristotle >>>>>> is there to help us (since he's the one who came up with this idea >>>>>> in the first place, 2500 years ago) and, even more fortuitously, we >>>>>> are now in a new paradigm (otherwise, we wouldn't be having this >>>>>> conversation). >>>>>> >>>>>> Mark >>>>>> >>>>>> P.S. The previous paradigm was characterized by "globalism" and what >>>>>> was called the "new world order" (i.e. the one that Kuhn was >>>>>> plumping for, as funded by the Ford Foundation) and it has now >>>>>> collapsed. Yes, this is what keeps Henry Kissinger awake at night. >>>>>> This is why Trump was elected, Briexit occured and the 5 Star >>>>>> Movement now runs Italy &c. This is also why we are now in another >>>>>> "counter-culture" (parallel to the 60s), since that's what happens >>>>>> to *culture* when paradigms shift (over-and-over, making its >>>>>> explanation a top priority for a "pure" sociology). This is the >>>>>> focus of my Center (and,, yes, I also know John Ralston Saul). >>>>>> >>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www. >>> amazon.com_Collapse-2DGlobalism-2DJ-2DR-2DSaul_dp_1786494485&d=DwIDaQ&c= >>> eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r= >>> HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m= >>> 8qMQODcDkzHIMIPWHwejYDRD8zDMlzuSjEgeHBa8lGA&s= >>> 4kvjg0j27G60OZOmJLQm4GmRSyKFwNZpRY6JwkeZ9WY&e= >>>>>> >>>>>> P.P.S. The "cheerio conspiracy" in all this is that the *center* of >>>>>> maintaining that now obsolete paradigm was the Government >>>>>> Communications Head-Quarters (GCHQ) which is the foundation of what >>>>>> some now call the "Deep State." Edward Snowden had a lot to say >>>>>> about them in terms of their acronym, "Five Eyes," making Trump's >>>>>> upcoming meeting with the Queen very interesting -- since the "Deep >>>>>> State" actually reports to her (yes, making Canada an actual >>>>>> national security threat) . . . !! >>>>>> >>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en. >>> wikipedia.org_wiki_Five-5FEyes&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSj >>> Odn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m= >>> 8qMQODcDkzHIMIPWHwejYDRD8zDMlzuSjEgeHBa8lGA&s= >>> s3ScNTD00fGwqUNtQsPGQEQcsbcSOwQaTNEYyxaajZA&e= >>>>>> >>>>>> P.P.P.S. Since our confusion about all this has been going on for a >>>>>> long-time, we will have to "drop back" and try to recover what >>>>>> previous paradigms -- such as the "Enlightenment" &c -- have >>>>>> destroyed. That is the origin of the "motto" on the Center website >>>>>> that "Digital *retrieves* the Medieval" and, from ISIS reviving >>>>>> *medieval* Jihad, to the Chinese reviving the *medieval* "Silk >>>>>> Road," it is already the world in which we live. As Marty McKly put >>>>>> it, "Doc, it's time to go back to the future" . . . <g> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en. >>> wikipedia.org_wiki_Back-5Fto-5Fthe-5FFuture&d=DwIDaQ&c= >>> eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r= >>> HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m= >>> 8qMQODcDkzHIMIPWHwejYDRD8zDMlzuSjEgeHBa8lGA&s=B4o24kuAh19SX2ks1cGJ_ >>> arOZDTP30QffE62ZH6ORwI&e= >>>>>> >>>>>> P.P.P.P.S. What we have to try to avoid, as difficult as it may be, >>>>>> is to not behave "like a drunk looking for our carkeys underneath >>>>>> the streetlamp, because that's where the light is." The recently >>>>>> past paradigms have seriously screwed us up. This is why we are in >>>>>> such terrible condition -- which, btw, is not the situation in >>>>>> China, where its historic civilization is now the focus of study at >>>>>> the Central Party School (where CPC cadre are trained in Beijing) -- >>>>>> and *all* of our attempts at "coherence" have failed. But, we're in >>>>>> luck, Aristotle is there to help us (which is why Summer School at >>>>>> the Center is teaching his 4th-century BC "On the Soul".) >>>>>> >>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www. >>> amazon.com_Soul-2DMemory-2DRecollection-2DAristotle_dp_ >>> 1888009179&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r= >>> HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m= >>> 8qMQODcDkzHIMIPWHwejYDRD8zDMlzuSjEgeHBa8lGA&s=tcrM699HyAbsXoXcHy52dE- >>> oXdz66F8YcxXYBoZt4iY&e= >>>>>> >>>>>> ############################ >>>>>> >>>>>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: >>>>>> mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:mailto<mailto: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 >>>>>> >>>>>> ############################ >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> ############################ >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> ############################ >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> ############################ >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>> >>> ############################ >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> ############################ >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> ############################ >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> ############################ >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> ############################ >>> >>> 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