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-2DFranciscan s-2DProtest-2DPersecution- 2DCentury_dp_0271023090&d= DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4 uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1I XYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgj O2gOz4-A&m=S5N7fY4D0fsz6ZMfZoK vIIQmhKLyQUPuje5zxwChvso&s= MxhmuIj_aSduatWSEJ4zJG39M0nywD QHyOea5cFQ1tE&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=eLbWY npnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_ 5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP- UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m= S5N7fY4D0fsz6ZMfZoKvIIQmhKLyQU Puje5zxwChvso&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=eLbWYnpn zycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_ 5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP- UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m= S5N7fY4D0fsz6ZMfZoKvIIQmhKLyQU Puje5zxwChvso&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=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNE B9RSjOdn_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-3 A__en.wiki
> pedia.org_wiki_The-5FExtended-5FPhenotype&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnp nzycBCgmb7
> vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jI YBgjO2gOz4
> -A&m=uHKAWFaAP1VQfQO7Zs6RMMP9dM1fVSGtIkNi3Oi3Mg0&s=dfNfUeDnj iTyyZYuh8x
> 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.psy chologytod
> ay.com_blog_theory-2Dknowledge&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7v CI4uqNEB9R
> SjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4- A&m=uHKAWF
> aAP1VQfQO7Zs6RMMP9dM1fVSGtIkNi3Oi3Mg0&s=iyFRFA9RrDTde63r0NoD qF9Q4vP1aP
> Gsb8-0WN1FbRs&e=
>
>
>
>
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
> write to: mailto:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[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:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[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:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[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:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[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:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[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