Dear Gregg and ToKers, I appreciate the effort to develop the ToK/UTUA system. However, you know that I think that this is merely extending the existing synchronic paradigm of tautologies and teleologies. The French Physiologist Etienne Roux has recently addressed the teleologic nature of physiology being described based on function, but doesn't offer an alternative, but I have offered a paradigm shift that would eliminate such Just So Stories, as I have said repeatedly. No doubt there were those who denied that the Earth is round (there are those who believe it to this day), but that would not have led to the WWW, for example, and me communicating with y'all in this mode. I have expressed the advantage of seeing our evolution from its unicellular origins (see attached), and have inserted that mechanism into your ToK 'map' at the Joint Points with explanations at each 'level' (see attached). I am sure that the ToK membership will feel much more comfortable with the descriptive perspective, but beware the downside of doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different outcome. We must stop the insanity of destroying the planet, thinking that we have an exit strategy. And CRISPR and AI are just as absurd IMHO. I welcome your criticisms. Best, John

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 8:27 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hi List,

  Central to the ToK and larger UTUA project is the claim that our language/communication systems break down into relative incoherence as we shift from the natural sciences (i.e., physics into chemistry into biology) into psychology and the social sciences. The evidence for this claim is found in “the problem of psychology” which is the fact that the problem of psychology’s definition and subject matter delineation has never been solved.

 

  My hope is one of the key pieces of foundational agreement for the TOK Society is to both understand this central fact, and why it is the case. The FACT that it is the case can be found in the fact that if there is anything psychologists agree on it is that there is not conceptual agreement that allows us to draw a circle around the center of the discipline. That is, unlike biology and physics, there is no subject matter center for the field. That is TRULY remarkable if you think about it.

 

Why is this the case? According to the ToK and larger UTUA framework, the reason is in large part because modern Western Philosophical traditions attempted to solve the mind/matter philosophical conundrum in terms of a reductive/deductive foundationalism into either (a) matter; (b) mind/idealism or (c) both. This was a grave mistake. What is needed, according to the ToK is a naturalistic systemic metaphysics, rather than a reductive/deductive foundationalist approach.

 

  Two attachments are shared to make this point. The first attachment is of a summary of a newly released book on humanistic psychology. I share it because it attempts to proclaim that psychology is (or should be) defined as the inner lived experience of persons. The “contained subjectivity” that is available only via introspection. And, BTW, would be lined up with much of what the representational qualia theory is concerned with, if you have been following the thread on consciousness between Brent, John and me. Of course, from my perspective this claim is deeply problematic for a host of reasons. If we take it seriously, it would mean observing a conversation between two people would not be “human psychology” because we would not see inside their heads. This is the logical/conceptual problem that the concept of mental behavior avoids.

 

  The second attachment is a summary of a 2014 book by the philosopher Lawrence Cahoone from his book Orders of Nature. Although we developed our visions and arguments completely separately, we came to a very similar conclusion, made particularly clear in his depiction of his vision of the orders of nature on p 91 and shared in the ppt. I COMPLETELY agree with Cahoone that the task of natural philosophy is to develop a systematic metaphysical picture that sets the stage for a shared language system.  

 

  Together I hope these two attachments demonstrate the point. Psychology is hopelessly floundering around because there is no scientific conceptual system that can anchor it and that is up to the task of dealing with the complexity of the objective, subjective, and intersubjective dimensions of human experience. And the Cahoone book shows us why: Modern Western Philosophy was misguided in its focus on a Foundationalist Deductive-Reductive ultimate metaphysics and instead should have been systemic metaphysics that afforded the sciences from quantum mechanics to sociology a coherent descriptive ontology that would allow for an effective, consilient language system. The absence of such a ToK-like system is at the root of the profound confusion and fragmented pluralism that characterizes the current state of the social sciences. And it means with the ToK, we can finally solve the problem and start to bring clarity to the confusion.

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

 

############################

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