Lots of thoughts, Dan. We should probably talk on the phone and there are lots of issues to try and disentangle. In quick reply… I am outlining the system as a UMELS in my in-progress book, The Problem of Psychology and Its Solution. I recently did a chapter on Toward a Metaphysical Empirical Psychology that gets at some of the key issues (written a year or so ago prior to my UMELS full formulation). I could share that if you are interested. In response to your inquiry, to make sense out it, we need a good understanding of the nature of the human phenomenological/experiencing self relative to the justifying self. The holistic experience of the phenomenological self is primarily organized in the right hemisphere. That is the portion of the human mind/self that is contextual and functions well off of mystery, music, mythos, metaphor and imaginative, implicit flow of being. It is the intuitive self experiencer that we almost certainly share with other great apes and social mammals like elephants. In contrast, the left hemisphere self is a linguistic, rational, justifying, legitimizing entity that focuses on the logic in logos. I think Iain McGilchrist does the best job in capturing this (see here<https://www.amazon.com/Master-His-Emissary-Divided-Western/dp/0300188374> for his primary book and here<McGilchrist> for a video interviewing him). As he notes, with the emergence of the Western Intellectual Tradition, what happens is that we end up having the left hemisphere logos-rationality completely dominate the phenomenological intuitive being in the world, at least in terms of the formal justification systems that organize and explicitly coordinate our ways of being in the world. Prior to this period (and still largely in Eastern philosophies, which are more pragmatic and holistic), the mythos/logos ways of knowing and being were more blended. The “nesting problem” to which you refer is one of the great problems of knowledge. With its dimensions of existence analysis that are linked by joint points and its “meta-cultural/meta-consciousness observer” stance, the ToK/UTUA system offers us new ways to approach this issue, one that combines the left hemisphere tendency toward logos and the right toward mythos (and pathos). Best, Gregg From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Dan Coburn Sent: Friday, June 14, 2019 9:02 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: A psychology of Christianity Hi Gregg, That’s really interesting referring to your UTUA model as a “unified metaphysical empirical language system.” Do you have any material expanding on that specifically? There is a real challenge with synthesizing premodern frames with other modern frames. For example, what I’ve outlined about the Word being the agent of cosmos-making I think primarily has to do with the “cosmos” as the phenomenological world(views) of human meaning and culture, not the objective physical space-time “cosmos" of modern science, which is one big source of confusion I find when the ancient frames are confused with the scientific frames. The ancient biblical worldview outlined in the essay primarily relates with the level of Culture in ToK I think, the worlds of meaning and culture. Now there’s overlap because the ancient phenomenological worldview overlaps with a modern scientific worldview. But one trouble I have sometimes is figuring out which should be nested into which. For example, in addition to the topics I’ve covered in the essay, one thing I’ve thought about is theology of God as Trinity as a phenomenological model of reality, which I could expand on if you’re interested. I bring this up because in some respects it appears to me to be a model that can be nested within modern science, and in other respects appears to be a model that modern science can be nested within. Which put another way somewhat parallels whether a scientific model should be nested in a phenomenological model or vice-versa. So I end up with a “nesting problem.” I hope this isn’t too much off topic. I just find seeking to say integrate ancient phenomenological world-models with modern scientific world-models challenging and unresolved for myself. Any thoughts? Dan On Jun 14, 2019, at 7:57 AM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: Hi Dan, I agree this is a fascinating essay and thanks for sharing. Lots to discuss, but let me share for now my “ultimate vision” (fantasy? 😊) of the Tree of Knowledge System (and larger UTUA framework) is that it can be part of the “meta” Cultural/Meta-Consciousness solution. By that I mean it can be one of the key “large scale” systems that allow for an integration point that pulls together many previously fragmented language games. In this past year, I have been starting to refer to the System as a “unified metaphysical empirical language system.” The idea is that it might help serve as a kind of “Rosetta stone” for deciphering the many paradigms and worldviews and allow us some reprieve from the current “tower of babel” (i.e., fragmented language) and move closer to the original Tower of Babel (i.e., a more unified language).<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_201301_psychologys-2Dtower-2Dbabel&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=f5_j8o-VinA6b_Asniww82vr763jtuP7yddI_UIlSys&s=0bmDYdEkcA9MQdGejmFeL5kd2EYQMx5lNPjvd-E9N6g&e=> Below is a graphic depiction that tries capture both the tree metaphor more concretely and the idea that, via the ToK, we might rise above the multiplicity of fragmented language games and achieve a more unified language system via achieving a more “meta cultural-consciousness position in relation.” Best, Gregg <image002.jpg> From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> On Behalf Of Dan Coburn Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2019 9:19 AM To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: A psychology of Christianity Hi ToK folks! Recently I shared this blog post with Gregg which explores a psychology of Christianity. I decided to share it here with our group and welcome your feedback on what you make of it. https://medium.com/@daniellewis_25907/a-psychology-of-christianity-c3b2733e50f8<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__medium.com_-40daniellewis-5F25907_a-2Dpsychology-2Dof-2Dchristianity-2Dc3b2733e50f8&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=Fu9d8LS6Z12B7UKMgfwQctAWOQLPX7rtoc1rP4Gg_6k&s=WiGgM6EN3mXKN1wqW27w1ajtGNFEySzFMYfFXSJ6GFQ&e=> The topics are pretty wide-ranging. Gregg brought up Peterson and Harris’ discussions about science and religion as relevant. I’m also interested in exploring how my outline relates with Gregg’s ToK system. Plus whatever else you’d like to add to the mix! For a bit of context, I’ve had a big interest in exploring relationships between psychology, spirituality, and religion (mostly Christianity based on my background) for a few years now, and this blog represents a culmination of some of my reflections. I also share Ken Wilber’s concern with how our major paradigms of knowledge from premodern religion, modern science, and postmodern pluralism are often fragmented, and Wilber’s interest in seeking more successful integrations of our intellectual heritage so to speak. Which is partly what frames this for me and motivates me to explore a psychology of Christianity. Let me know what you think. Looking forward to your feedback! Dan ############################ 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]<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]<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