LISTSERV - TOK-SOCIETY-L Archives

Dear List,

I have spoken with some folks, and I would like to offer a proposal. Please share reactions if you have them.

My proposal is that our contributors frame their responses a bit so that the audience can be clear about knowledge system they are operating from. This request was triggered by Lonny’s reply to the behavioral selection post. As I back channeled him, when I read it, like Jamie, I was quite confused. It was definitely not the ToK/UTUA language system (i.e., it characterized the meaning/empirical reference of mind, life, feeling, etc. very differently). It became immediately clear in our back channel exchange that, indeed, Lonny was operating off of a different metaphysical system/language game. That is fine, of course, but if it is not clear, it leads to confusion for the audience…very much along the lines if someone started speaking French.

My exchange with Lonny made explicit what has become, I think, a bit of an issue for the list. That is, we are seeing lots of posts (which is good) from individuals who are speaking from a number of different systems (which is ok, but can be confusing). John’s First Principles of Physiology and Mark’s McLuhan x Aristotle positions are two that are prominent. Jamie’s Moral Apex is another (although it is not necessarily different from the ToK/UTUA). With Lonny in the mix, plus the ToK/UTUA frame, that is potentially five different systems of thought. That is a lot to keep track of, increasing the likelihood of audience overload and tuning out.

I propose a few things. First, I think it will help the audience if the poster is clear what frame they are speaking from. Second, I think it is fine that we have different version of reality that folks are operating from. We are exploring (big) Theories Of Knowledge, after all. It is also the case, however, that the ToK/UTUA frame is the “center of gravity” that has served to attract the group as a whole. So, I think it would make sense if that was considered the “default” and we should be primarily oriented to it and if one is using a different frame, be clear about it in relation to the ToK. I would also welcome more in-depth exploration of the ToK/UTUA in relation to other frames or problems in general. For example, I thought Joe’s comment about universities could have been a great “in” to explore what the ToK/UTUA frame is getting at.

In terms of examples about what I mean, I already mentioned that it would have helped out if Lonny had started out his email via an articulation of his position. Another example that came up yesterday was the response by Mark to the entropic brain article, which he responded to by saying, “it need not concern us too much. No, physics (and math) is not where understanding begins.” I did not know who the “us” was, and, as such, it did not sit quite right. However, if we knew the “us” meant Mark’s paradigm that emphasizes McLuhan and formal metaphysics, then the “us” is clearer. It is an interesting paradigm, no doubt. But that is the frame over on his list (Center for Digital Life), and it is not the ToK/UTUA frame, which as I mentioned to him in my brief reply, is fundamentally about the assimilation and integration of knowledge systems. (The article about brain, mind and entropy is very much connected to the ToK/UTUA system. Indeed, the article was conceptually anchored to the Friston’s free energy principle, which Chance explored some on is dissertation on dreams and the unified approach, so that is a direct connection between the article and BIT).

Anyway, those are some thoughts for the day. This is not intended to be a powerplay or designed to diminish other voices so the light is only shined on the ToK (Side note: In JH speak, this “disclaimer” is designed to advertise my selflessness, as I behave selfishly 😊…If you look for them, such justification disclaimers happen all the time—and not just in others; you will do them automatically as well), but rather it is intended to bring some focus and clarity to these discussions. The goal is to help those who are following have a sense of shared participation, clarity and cumulative understanding, as opposed to experiencing the list as a rather chaotic flood of ideas coming from a multitude of diverse perspectives with no reference point for understanding. The whole point of the ToK/UTUA is to NOT replicate the chaotic processes that are happening in the world out there!

Look forward to others’ thoughts if they have them.

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://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/theory-knowledge

Check out my webpage at: