Gregg

Unless you can see outside of a Cartesian-Kantian Individualist paradigm,
which as become dogma among the western academic middle classes, how can
you really see anything universal at all?
Rather ask yourself where this incessant need to construct hierarchies of
intellectual superiority and inferiority come from. Totally unfounded
hierarchies too.
Like one of my philosopher colleagues once said about Ken Wilber to an
eager student: "Oh, that Colorado guy who constructs hierarchies between
people which follow no other rule than that Ken Wilber himself ends up on
top".
I'm a huge fan of Michel Foucault and the other French Nietzscheans of the
20th century that people like Jordan Peterson have never even studied.
I'm just not a big fan of the absurd American bastardization that comes in
the form of Judith Butler and other Rousseauian self-victimhood cultists.
Therefore my strong opposition to SJWs.
But even Foucault warned in the 1970s about where The Gay Movement would be
heading and obviously had hated queer theory. Big big difference.
Rather always ask yourself when you face a social system of any kind: Whose
interests does this system serve and which narrative does the system preach
t advance its self-interests. Always. Othewise you're just naive.
So seems psychology has quite a lot of middle class boys who want to be on
top. Don't you think?
Personally I'm working on eventology and nomadology to understand humans
and their interactions. Behaviorism without any boyish hierarchy fantasies
at all. But then I don't use the term "deplorables" about other human too.
IQ tests prove nothing but the capacity to solve IQ tests. Wilber
hierarchies show nothing but the capacity to imitate Ken Wilber. Really
nothing else.

Best intentions
Alexander

Den fre 11 okt. 2019 kl 23:54 skrev Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
[log in to unmask]>:

> There is my “swashbuckling” intellectual deep web friend! Thanks for your
> reply, Helen. I concur.
>
>
>
> Bard, given your rhetoric, let me ask: Do you think the hard working
> Puerto Rican woman would give a crap about Lacan? Or Digital Libido? Hah!
> To say it has no bearing is a blanket dismissal, a rhetorical move. What
> are your questions? What is your complaints? From a psych science
> perspective, the models of cognitive/ego development are perfectly
> respectable models. It starts with Piaget. There is Kohlberg, Jane
> Loevinger, Gerald Young, Ken Wilber, Robert Kegan and perhaps the most
> barebones empirical work Michael Commons’ Models of Hierarchical
> Complexity.
>
>
>
> I will say, YES, to your basic point that we need to be very cognizant of
> the “hierarchy” dynamic—and it is a potential problem. Kegan discusses it
> in this Rebel Wisdom video <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_watch-3Fv-3DbhRNMj6UNYY&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=fC02nHzjnoUPtTfWVPf_FobZZlrADx_gZFei1EtTCRA&s=hkp-ujkhT3h_WQ0VzS5N1IPlrDojubxzvNtyqqSAcwM&e=>.
> I am well-versed in the dynamics of Western psychology relative to
> indigenous populations and am happy to dialogue about that also. But I must
> say given all your talk of dismissing SJW’s and the need for authentic
> phallus movements, it seems odd that you are making that claim.
>
>
>
> Bottom line…what is your point? That every concept in psychological
> science needs to be relevant to the working man?
>
> G
>
>
>
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Alexander Bard
> *Sent:* Friday, October 11, 2019 4:34 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: podcast with Andrew Yang
>
>
>
> Dear Friends
>
>
>
> I honestly believe that all these hierarchical pseudo-Wilberian models are
> total and utter middle class bullshit with no bearing at all in real life.
>
> Pure fantasy based on an enormous need to show intellectual superiority
> when there is absolutely none whatsoever. Or else give me throrough and
> exact answers.
>
> I agree stringly with Camille Pagliga that I trust any Puerto Rican mother
> of five a thousand times more than any of the (always) male middle class
> proponents of these models.
>
> Come back to down to earth, boys! You can't hionestly believe that any of
> this nonsense has any bearing in real life. Really???
>
> Change diapers, then talk about "superiority of paradigms" or whatever
> crap you can come up with. No wonder that working class people loathe this
> kind of nonsense.
>
> Or did you ever meet a female Puerto Rican mother of five who cared one
> bit about Ken Wilber's autistic fantasies of the world? All they see are
> boys who can't even feed themselves for "watching the world from their
> fairytale towers".
>
> And I have not even started to look at what Freud and Jung would make of
> these "hierarchies". Did I say Karl Marx?
>
>
>
> Big love, and I mean it
>
> Alexander
>
>
>
> Den fre 11 okt. 2019 kl 18:00 skrev Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
> [log in to unmask]>:
>
> Thanks, Cory, this is helpful.
>
>
>
> The concepts that Cory raises are addressed in similar ways in Hanzi
> Freincht’s metamodern political philosophy, which is laid in his two books,
> The Listening Society and Nordic Ideology. I am halfway through the second
> book. I am generally a big fan. Attached is a copy of the page with the
> basic message of the Listening Society, and some links to metamodern
> philosophy.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Gregg
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Cory David Barker
> *Sent:* Friday, October 11, 2019 11:52 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: podcast with Andrew Yang
>
>
>
> @ All
>
>
>
> Along with Zachary, I also bring a developmental psychology point of view.
> It is a bit long winded because I use a stage model to contextualize what
> is underpinning the large scale debates that go beyond this forum. TLDR at
> the bottom.
>
>
>
> ( @ Zak, feel free to amend if I have made any errors )
>
>
>
> Individual and collective worldviews and their political structures, are
> outputs of cognitive and moral behavioral stage functions. The general idea
> behind sociocultural developmental psychology, is that people can’t think
> and feel about the social challenges we face any differently than they do,
> because people and groups haven’t grown into the capacities to do so. And
> people don’t grow into those capacities because they haven’t had diverse
> enough experiences to see the world in any other way.
>
>
>
> The model of hierarchical complexity is a general stage model that says
> that for every domain, people go up stages of development by synthesizing
> disparate ways of thinking and doing at one stage, into a more complex
> one-stage-higher way of thinking and doing. E.g. abstractions are formed
> from coordinating across concrete ideas, and formal logics are formed from
> coordinating across abstractions. Through this lens:
>
>
>
> *Most people hit a ceiling at formal and systematic stage. *This means
> that while a person can coordinate basic formal logic within or across a
> given system one at a time, the person(s) lack the skill to coordinate
> uniformly across a multiplicity of systems simultaneously. People cannot
> see how actions they and others take in one system adversely effects
> another system (or don’t care), and misrepresent causes and effects.
> Instruments from multiple models with different approximation what this
> stage is about, suggest it is somewhere around 40-50% of populations.
> Kegan, Torbert, and Commons have all run instruments on this.
>
>
>
> *A smaller number of people behave meta-systematically (5%)*, which is to
> say they can fully understand and coordinate principles and work across
> multiple systems. But the issue is that people disagree on which principles
> are more appropriate fits to circumstance, and use their meta-systematic
> capacities to strategize against each other to outplay their opponents
> instead of strategizing together to find shared solutions.
>
>
>
> *An even smaller number of people can behave paradigmatically (1%)*. This
> is when people are capable of coordinating multiple disparate principles
> together at the same time, across multiple systems relations. Again, there
> is an issue, because people fight over which paradigms are best. When
> attempting to construct a universal paradigm for social systems, we still
> will see meta-systematic challenges, such as people creating secret
> alliances and trying to game the paradigm as it is being created. This is
> what we see happening all the time in democratic law systems.
>
>
>
> *A very tiny minority of the population can coordinate
> cross-paradigmatically (<.5%). *This is where people attempt to
> synthesize multiple paradigms together, and in shared social contexts it
> means everyone involved genuinely caring for all stakeholder interests.
> When people come together cross-paradigmatically, this is where the real
> positive change happens. It is very complex, a person needs to know about a
> lot of things in order to do it, and one needs to be flexible as new
> information is presented. It takes a lot of mutual respect and trust for
> people coming from different points of view to work together. This is
> constantly undermined as people who hit ceilings at meta-systematic and
> paradigmatic reasoning can see such attempts as serious threats to
> preservation of their identities, beliefs and profits, and try and
> undermine large-scale bipartisanship. People systematic stage or under end
> up getting gamed by rhetoric.
>
>
>
> *TLDR: *Some emphasis here should be placed on how to foster cognitive
> and moral development in people, because people will come to better
> conclusions themselves as a natural function of having more developed
> cognitive and moral capacities, which means less people needing to be
> convincing about the way forward.
>
>
>
> If anyone is interested in this kind of lens, here are some references
>
>
>
> Commons’ hierarchical complexity >>>
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Model-5Fof-5Fhierarchical-5Fcomplexity&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=ER4kE_xWN2hMMfqRBGKnmXH1HaZDxxOt8mkOTUFDgUI&s=Mqo32xaqzpHH89huOLPSe2_92bPIPXnnfLw80sa1sTM&e=>
>
> Kegan’s orders of consciousness >>>
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Robert-5FKegan&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=ER4kE_xWN2hMMfqRBGKnmXH1HaZDxxOt8mkOTUFDgUI&s=VUSKlvFH90OzBONYSVUB5YSAqHdWKCc1px-JieiMuU4&e=>
>
> Kohlberg’s moral stage theory >>>
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Lawrence-5FKohlberg-27s-5Fstages-5Fof-5Fmoral-5Fdevelopment&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=ER4kE_xWN2hMMfqRBGKnmXH1HaZDxxOt8mkOTUFDgUI&s=h7juNiVqatSUiGvXrZpZxzMv56H1nDGUcwjx8gSTcvg&e=>
>
> Torbert’s action logics >>>
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__drive.google.com_open-3Fid-3D0B08MvGKqEtbNcUhoQjZXejlSY3M&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=ER4kE_xWN2hMMfqRBGKnmXH1HaZDxxOt8mkOTUFDgUI&s=uVO3HwbpqR1sgXhtSwaRQjt2G-XANPJ27dmwkDQtkB0&e=>
>
>
>
> Cory
>
>
>
> On Oct 11, 2019, at 9:16 AM, nysa71 <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Helen,
>
> Hence, why the Job Guarantee proposal entails being federally funded, but
> locally administered.
>
> Right now, we have the federal government controlling inflation via a
> buffer stock of unemployed people. JG proponents turn that on its head by
> proposing that we control inflation via a buffer stock of employed people
> in their community.
>
> I certainly don't trust corporations to be the arbiters of human value.
> But that's what government currently has as a default position.
>
> Ultimately, it is the federal government which determines the unemployment
> rate via its policies, particularly its fiscal policies. JG proponents say
> this is illogical, economically unsound, impractical, and morally
> unjustifiable. The federal government, (or any national government that
> issues its own currency, for that matter), should have a policy of full
> employment.
>
> Indeed, the JG would be a necessary prerequisite to effectively transition
> to a more just society.
>
> ~ Jason Bessey
>
>
>
> On Friday, October 11, 2019, 08:36:00 AM EDT, Helen Wu <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Jason, guaranteed jobs would be great if jobs are tailored to the
> individual and are helpful to the world. I think I just don't trust the
> government to implement a large program like that properly.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Helen
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 5:45 AM nysa71 <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Hi Helen,
>
> Your concerns about providing basic needs and engaging in meaningful
> activities are (along with other concerns) precisely addressed with the Job
> Guarantee proposal. It's about setting a minimum standard for how workers
> will be treated in society, and engaging in meaningful work in their
> community that is tailored to the individual that's not about generating
> profit, (as opposed to tailoring individuals to the work needed by those
> who are trying to generate a profit)...all within the context of sound
> macroeconomics.
>
> ~ Jason Bessey
>
>
>
> On Thursday, October 10, 2019, 11:43:19 AM EDT, Helen Wu <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks Gregg for your reminder.
>
>
>
> I think everyone here hopes for a world in which everyone have the
> opportunity to live peaceful lives, have fulfilling careers, good
> relationships, etc. How we are going to get there seems to be the source of
> disagreement. I really believe in a person-centered approach in that if
> basic needs are provided most people will naturally move towards growth and
> self-actualization. Just basic needs, not spoiling. From an attachment
> perspective as well, it is hard to move forward/take risks without a secure
> base to go back to.
>
>
>
> I do believe that there is a deep human need for contribution and reward,
> but this reward does not have to be money. It could just be seeing that you
> have contributed to other people's happiness and as as result receive
> recognition and status. That's why I am not as afraid of a UBI destroying
> people's motivations as some people here. Time is a very valuable resource
> and as a society I think we overemphasize money-generating work. If I can
> just work 20-30 hours a week and make a middle class salary, I would. And I
> would spend my free time doing other things that I find meaningful.
>
>
>
> I also want to make the point that even if poverty rates are decreasing, I
> don't think people are having easier lives. The lives of people just above
> the poverty line are really really hard. Our life expectancy is actually
> decreasing in this nation. Think about that.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Helen
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 10:24 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Hi Folks,
>
>
>
>   Just want to send out a reminder that this list is fine with sharp
> disagreements, but also to keep in mind that, perhaps because the list is
> populated by therapists, it has less of a “swashbuckling” culture than some
> other lists. I think a basic principle that we should all endorse is that
> the “real world” is far more complicated than either our particular
> perspectives or theories can account for. As such, I don’t know that
> sweeping generalizations are helpful. Rather, attempting at understanding,
> even while agreeing is probably preferred. Consider, that the idea that
> there are massive inequalities and that they might be both indicative of a
> problem and that it is a problem of human fairness is not fundamentally
> inconsistent with the idea that taking people’s money via governmental
> force is not a good solution.
>
>
>
>  At the general level, I would encourage folks to operate from the frame
> that what they are sharing is that it is their “version of reality” and
> that we operate off of “justification systems”. For a paper on the linkage
> of the concept of justification systems and versions of reality, see this
> paper by my colleague Craig Shealy, especially, the first half
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.gregghenriques.com_uploads_2_4_3_6_24368778_justifying-5Fthe-5Fjustification-5Fhypothesis.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=gvgczc8qVRdRblZrCs_0DRm5dCsCZq0aHTxLOHJiW-c&s=E66bEm-UcJ34hgBOC1QpYOi9nZvMXwPfjjE7nUWB_e4&e=>.
> He is known in our C-I program for what I think is a helpful, *humbling
> adage to live by…We are all full of sh*t, just to different degrees and
> different degrees of awareness
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_201602_humbling-2Dhelpful-2Dadage-2Dlive&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=gvgczc8qVRdRblZrCs_0DRm5dCsCZq0aHTxLOHJiW-c&s=w5aWyLpCUvYPKBFIYWBSj5nUDLHovKih975po2bSuCk&e=>.*
>
>
>
> Thanks to everyone for their contributions.
>
>
> Best,
> Gregg
>
>
>
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Zachary Stein
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 10, 2019 10:58 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: podcast with Andrew Yang
>
>
>
> Hi Alexander Elung,
>
>
>
> Perhaps I have mistaken you for someone else on the IDW list. Sorry.
>
>
>
> My sense is if we slowed down we would agree on a few things:
>
>
>
> 1). There are very significant skill and capability differences between
> people.
>
>
>
> 2). These are differentially rewarded by the market, such that a certain
> amount of economic inequality is necessary.
>
>
>
> So far so good.
>
>
>
> My sense is we think differently about:
>
>
>
> 3). The dynamics of how the market rewards various skills, especially the
> extent to which there is a strong correlation between the amount of money
> someone has and their skill levels. ….. I don’t think it is all that strong
> of a correlation.
>
>
>
> 4). The amount of inequality that is necessary for the social system to
> reflect skill differences clearly/functionally, as opposed to amounts and
> forms of inequality that are result in a misrepresentation of skill
> differences. …. I think we are in the latter situation.
>
>
>
> But it is possible to read 3 and 4 in terms of a “pure/perfect
> meritocracy” —as I think you do — which says that people get what they
> deserve based on their skills and efforts. I wish this was true, and hold
> it as an ideal. But I do not believe that such a society has ever existed
> historically. Although, I think we have lived in social systems that
> perpetrated the idea of a pure meritocracy as if it was true....
>
>
>
> My notion of *extreme* or “bad” inequality has to do with my take on 3 and
> 4. I think that the market does not reward skill differences in coherent
> ways, to the extent that the social system as a whole is beginning to
> suffer under the strain of over-valuing the wrong things/people.
>
>
>
> Envy is not really the issue (although when it comes to the mob/pitch
> forks, that is an issue). My concern is with the economy as a kind of
> sensor network or distributed intelligence, the coherence of which is an
> aspect of social reproduction; and I am saying that we are in an
> increasingly confused and incoherent economic situation, *extreme*
> inequality being one of many bad signs.
>
>
>
> zak
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 10, 2019, at 10:27 AM, Alexander Elung <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> I have never used name-calling over arguments in disagreements.  However,
> you seem to do so right out of the gate.  Calling something “introductory
> level political science level stuff” is not an argument at all and you are
> also dead wrong.
>
> I completely agree with Bards point  "Don't fiddle with the deep deep
> human connection between contribution and reward “  but inheritance does
> not fiddle with that.  Creating an inheritance for your children is a giant
> motivation for many people, when trying to earn money.   You claiming that
> is makes inequality “ extreme” is not an argument.   The people who has
> inherited money are also not at all the problem.  The problem Bard was
> pointing out was that giving a universal income to people might discourage
> them to work and thus deflate the economy, .  People who inherit money,
> often still works and even if they didn’t they wouldn’t drain the system
> for resources.  You have completely, since the money has to come from
> something.  You have misunderstood the “contribution/ rewards” connection
> I’m afraid – all I’m hearing is that you are envious that some people
> inherit money, without any argument as to why that should be a problem,
> other than you just subjectively think it’s bad for some people to have
> more than others.  That’s not an argument. That’s childish envy.
>
>
> I on the other hand, just gave you a lengthy argument, that poverty
> actually had been decreasing for three decades and inequality therefor was
> meaningless in that context.  You can’t just add “ extreme” to that, and
> expect it to cover the glaring lack of coherence in your non-argument.
>
> And yes Zac , there are actually skill differences which make people able
> to make over million times the amounts of money as other people. It’s about
> how much value you provide and how much the market deems that to be worth.
> If you are able to invent something like paypal – that is indeed worth a
> million times or more than an average worker. If you are able to write
> harry potter, that might make you a billionaire, because people value your
> work that much more than the next fantasy writer.   If you don’t understand
> that, you don’t understand the basics of economy.
>
> So no, Zak, social inequality is not fundamentally different – you just
> don’t understand how the market works.
>
>
>
> Best
>
> Elung
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *Fra:* tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]>
> på vegne af Zachary Stein <[log in to unmask]>
> *Sendt:* Thursday, October 10, 2019 3:31:33 PM
> *Til:* [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> *Emne:* Re: podcast with Andrew Yang
>
>
>
> Hi Alexander Elung,
>
>
>
> Fancy meeting you here.
>
>
>
> Given how I have seen you and Bard interact on other lists, I’ll keep
> expectations for reasoned discourse low (and instead anticipate some name
> calling and hand waving as a way of side stepping clear argumentation) ;-)
> [It seems to me you guys just love freaking out the liberals and leftists
> and the" church-lady environmentalists and social justice warriors,” as you
> have called them. I am sometimes all for this, but it leads you to make
> some not so great arguments sometimes.]
>
>
>
> Obviously inequality is not “bad" in principle. Inequality, by some
> definition, is a kind of ontological given in the structure of things,
> including human societies.
>
>
>
> But I should not have to point out how flawed your basic argument is; this
> is like introduction to political science level stuff.
>
>
>
> Individual differences in e.g., the ability to run fast are naturally
> occurring, physiologically based differentials in human capability.
>
>
>
> Socially mediated economic and political inequalities are fundamentally
> different.
>
>
>
> Socially mediated forms of inequality are not a proxy for naturally
> occurring skill differentials. [This is the myth of *pure meritocracy.*]
>
>
>
> I am a developmental psychologist, so I understand this dynamic of
> individual capability differences quite well, and have written about it at
> length. Indeed, these naturally occurring differences in ability are one of
> the reasons we need to ease up on how extreme we make the socially created
> asymmetries of choice-making power.
>
>
>
> I.e., are there *any* skill differentials as great as the economic
> differentials we see in our society, e.g., can someone be a million times
> faster than me in a foot race? Can they even be a hundred times faster? See
> where this goes?
>
>
>
> If we want to represent naturally occurring skill differentials in
> socially mediated economic terms that is a great idea, let's do that. But
> this strategy would begin with *drastically* chopping the (ridiculous,
> unconscionable) salaries of CEOs and financial service worker, and
> drastically raising the (shamefully low) salaries of people like teachers
> and nurses, etc....
>
>
>
> The other Alexander hit the nail on the head, then I hit it again, but you
> went and missed it:
>
>
>
> "Don't fiddle with the deep deep human connection between contribution and
> reward is my suggestion.”
>
>
>
> Extreme inequality (not *all* inequality) disrupts the connection between
> contribution and reward. Total absence of inequality—i.e., pure
> equity—also disrupts this, which is your moment of truth. (Yes, we know: If
> everyone gets a gold star, this makes gold stars are worthless.)
>
>
>
> But radical economic inequality (especially when
> based largely on inheritance), is in effect, a situation where the most
> empowered classes are signaling that there is no connection between
> contribution and reward.
>
>
>
> As I said, this is a ticking social time bomb. Whether it is “wrong” in
> some ethical sense is another matter. Just look at the work of Peter
> Turchin, and you’ll see an undeniable correlation between major
> socio-economic inequality and major social strife, war, and
> revolution—especially during the recent history of the
> modern capitalist world system.
>
>
>
> zak
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 10, 2019, at 8:06 AM, Alexander Elung <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> I really think people need to get around the idea that inequality is the
> problem.  There is nothing inherently wrong with inequality. If we looked
> at human “Running speed” we would also find a very high degree of
> inequality, where a very little group of athletes run faster than everyone
> else. That doesn’t mean there is a system of oppression keeping the average
> person from running fast.   What it means is, that people are different and
> some people will do better than others. All systems has inequality, it’s
> part of how systems functions.   The graph about inheritance shows nothing
> relevant to whether or not the degree of inequality is a problem or not.
>
> The problem is poverty, not inequality and poverty has reduced drastically
> in the last three decades. The poorest people in the west have access to
> smartphones, they for the most part aren’t starving and have access to
> health care.  When you start measuring the things that actually matter, we
> actually live in a time where real poverty is almost completely eliminated
> in the west.
>
> So can we stop with the “ inequality has never been higher” narrative ?
> It’s meaningless.
>
> -
>
> I agree with Bard regarding cancelling welfare systems and replacing it
> with negative income tax. Governments are not good at spending money
> efficiently, so the less money the government can spend on anti-poverty
> programs, the better for the poor. Give them the money in hand.
>
>
>
> Best
>
> Elung
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Fra: *Alexander Bard <[log in to unmask]>
> *Sendt: *9. oktober 2019 17:33
> *Emne: *Re: podcast with Andrew Yang
>
>
>
> Dear Zak
>
>
>
> I have no problem whatsoever with a negative income tax för the poor
> (meaning they get money, not pay taxes).
>
> I actually think it is a lot lot better than current welfare systems.
> Because the poor as much as anybody know best how to spend their own money.
>
> Then kill the rest of the welfare systems. Excellent.
>
> As for Piketty, he promotes massively taxing the rich. That's not UBI. But
> then there is the issue of feasibility. I fins his ideas interesting but
> niave in lack of realism and dynamism. But a great and much needed voice.
>
> What pisses me off the most is the tech giants and their babble about UBI:
> While they are the biggest tax avoiders ever in history.
>
> Have we ever seen anything more hypocritical than Silicon Valley?
> Currently full of "climatists" who refuse to give up even on their branded
> mineral water bottles.
>
> The techlash has hopefully only just begun.
>
>
>
> Big love
>
> Alexander Bard
>
>
>
> Den ons 9 okt. 2019 kl 15:24 skrev Zachary Stein <[log in to unmask]>:
>
> Totally Helen. Thanks for this. I hear you, and to be clear, I am a
> supporter of a properly implemented set of radical socio-economic policy
> changes, including a UBI.
>
> The problem on this thread is that there are a few things unfolding. One
> concerns the presidential election and what is being said, by who, and what
> could actually be done by any elected official, etc. The other issues
> concern foundational problems in political and economic theory.
>
> I have very little to say that is not utterly radical about the 2020
> election situation...
>
> So I am sticking to the topics in political economy.
>
> Alexander hits the nail on the head:
>
> "Don't fiddle with the deep deep human connection between contribution and
> reward is my suggestion.”
>
> But, my dear Alexander, our fiddling with this connection is already the
> heart of the problem. We have already deeply fucked it up... This was my
> point about the *the massive and ever increasing economic inequality.*(!)
>
> Consider this data from Piketty:
>
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__piketty.pse.ens.fr_files_capital21c_en_pdf_F11.11.pdf&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=GnlnhKhfaXgzXHtv49mZRgbwzURspoigX2ZFwCDpoh4&s=aP0bq0H5DEi5te-21S342-ceKeAdEMTx75cCTWwWwoc&e=
> <https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Furldefense.proofpoint.com-252Fv2-252Furl-253Fu-253Dhttp-2D3A-5F-5Fpiketty.pse.ens.fr-5Ffiles-5Fcapital21c-5Fen-5Fpdf-5FF11.11.pdf-2526d-253DDwIFaQ-2526c-253DeLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn-5F5nBEmmeq0-2526r-253DHPo1IXYDhKClogP-2DUOpybo6Cfxxz-2DjIYBgjO2gOz4-2DA-2526m-253DGnlnhKhfaXgzXHtv49mZRgbwzURspoigX2ZFwCDpoh4-2526s-253DaP0bq0H5DEi5te-2D21S342-2DceKeAdEMTx75cCTWwWwoc-2526e-253D-26data-3D02-257C01-257C-257C8e5574a3bec541883fa208d74ccdfcd3-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C637062319897030978-26sdata-3DhPGaeIidJwlrAk4teZlwWB5rRQlTh4iPdkqjhynXtTQ-253D-26reserved-3D0%26d%3DDwMF-g%26c%3DeLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0%26r%3DHPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A%26m%3DSoi1vv5PlSKY4UvGgbeXe9Tg304k_-IruzOPeREvoWY%26s%3DaRswGTRZFzmVp4jPXCLfn23agS9dAuKqmSD84YQMus4%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cb654280f1f4643b0eab408d74d866134%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637063111857653564&sdata=yjIBATv%2FDNQYBWogTJ%2F54J%2F8OTtw776IsIgMtvS5xJk%3D&reserved=0>
>
>  "Within the cohorts born around 1970-1980, 12-14% of individuals receive
> in inheritance the equivalent of the lifetime labor income received by the
> bottom 50% less well paid workers.”   [Let that one sink in.]
>
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__piketty.pse.ens.fr_files_capital21c_en_pdf_F8.8.pdf&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=GnlnhKhfaXgzXHtv49mZRgbwzURspoigX2ZFwCDpoh4&s=tlL1o8rQ1HMEolMt9enzpYEYuuZ38fNp0x_zj2l0MGU&e=
> <https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Furldefense.proofpoint.com-252Fv2-252Furl-253Fu-253Dhttp-2D3A-5F-5Fpiketty.pse.ens.fr-5Ffiles-5Fcapital21c-5Fen-5Fpdf-5FF8.8.pdf-2526d-253DDwIFaQ-2526c-253DeLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn-5F5nBEmmeq0-2526r-253DHPo1IXYDhKClogP-2DUOpybo6Cfxxz-2DjIYBgjO2gOz4-2DA-2526m-253DGnlnhKhfaXgzXHtv49mZRgbwzURspoigX2ZFwCDpoh4-2526s-253DtlL1o8rQ1HMEolMt9enzpYEYuuZ38fNp0x-5Fzj2l0MGU-2526e-253D-26data-3D02-257C01-257C-257C8e5574a3bec541883fa208d74ccdfcd3-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C637062319897030978-26sdata-3DLsvCNmgYNWMGibvCaH6z7qxeGgMhkG1Tu-252FG-252Bw3q4iFM-253D-26reserved-3D0%26d%3DDwMF-g%26c%3DeLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0%26r%3DHPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A%26m%3DSoi1vv5PlSKY4UvGgbeXe9Tg304k_-IruzOPeREvoWY%26s%3DRINbrrPUocBfy4x8Mlyla2L0TIWKuPZM7V9mgTKFnt8%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cb654280f1f4643b0eab408d74d866134%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637063111857663576&sdata=gjvcqcA7THScyqY8srrqu7B6KVkUg%2BWdo5XWu%2ByN5W8%3D&reserved=0>
>
> "The rise in the top 1% highest incomes since the 1970s is largely due to
> the rise in the top 1% highest wages” [Note that we have nearly surpassed
> the Gilded Age in inequality and its speeding up.]
>
> This way of arranging the connection between contribution and reward
> (i.e., having the most empowered classes signal that there is no
> connection) is a ticking social time bomb.
>
> I would say that this kind of inequality is way worse in its net effects
> than a UBI.
>
> However, what if a UBI is rolled out and the rest of the situation
> described in the figures above does not change? Then it is like the
> aristocrats using cash to pay off a mob wielding pitch forks, knowing full
> well there is no plan to change the overall arrangement, and that in a few
> years they will have better defenses.
>
> A far as I can tell no President is capable of or interested in changing
> this overall arrangement (sorry Bennie, you’ll need to sell that house in
> Grand Isle VT). But now we are back to my radical ideas about 2020…
>
> Crisp morning in the Green Mountains.
>
> zak
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 9, 2019, at 8:34 AM, Helen Wu <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > This discussion makes me frustrated. $1000 a month is not enough to
> cancel work. We are not talking about a $50,000 per year UBI here. It is
> just enough so you are not going to end up on a downward spiral if there
> are sudden financial difficulties. Saudi Arabia has a lot more problems
> than UBI. Not sure if that's the best example. Half of my family is working
> class and I know so many people who need some money now. They are not lazy
> and they are not going to lose their souls/spirit. They don't have the time
> for education. They just need some help so that they can have some
> breathing space to move on towards their goal.
> >
> > Best,
> > Helen
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 5:54 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Zak,
> >
> >   What I think we should be investing in is an education of the human
> soul toward the spirit…now that is a collective universal I could get
> behind!
> >
> >
> >
> > Of course, as a psychotherapist, most of my work is soul work, so I will
> leave the truly spiritual stuff to the real gurus.
> >
> >
> > Best,
> > Gregg
> >
> >
> >
> > From: tree of knowledge system discussion <
> [log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Alexander Bard
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2019 3:26 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: podcast with Andrew Yang
> >
> >
> >
> > I agree 100% with dear Zachary.
> >
> > There actually already exists one massive UBI experiment in the world
> and you may study it to see how it all went.
> >
> > It is called Saudi Arabia.
> >
> > Shopping centers full of 29-year-old obese diabetics while foreigners do
> all the meaningful paid work in the country.
> >
> > Is that the sort of society you would want to create?
> >
> > Don't fiddle with the deep deep human connection between contribution
> and reward is my suggestion. And forget that there won't be any jobs in the
> future. There will tons of them. The question what kind of experiemtial
> quality they will provide though. But that's an entirely different matter
> and not a case for UBI (which still has to be paid, massively paid, by
> somebody as well).
> >
> > Best intentions
> >
> > Alexander
> >
> >
> >
> > Den tis 8 okt. 2019 kl 21:49 skrev Zachary Stein <[log in to unmask]>:
> >
> > Hi ToK list,
> >
> >
> >
> > Having published about UBI as a non expert (I am a philosopher of
> education [UBI is one of my “social miracles”]), I will say that it is
> dangerous when taken up in isolation from other social programs and
> especially educational initiatives.
> >
> >
> >
> > Indeed, there are scenarios where the UBI is a true nightmare, and I am
> not talking about inflation and other economic fallout — I am talking about
> meaninglessness, de-skilled apathy, addiction, suicide, i.e.,
> total/catastrophic mental health crisis. (The same holds for a so-called
> "guaranteed work program," if done in isolation from related social
> programs and educational initiatives).
> >
> >
> >
> > UBI is as much (more so?) an educational/cultural issue then a math
> problem in economics.
> >
> >
> >
> > Even if we can make the numbers work the real hard problem is making the
> idea work as a part of the current human identity structure  (i.e., as part
> of our self-system's role-taking and social justification dynamics).
> >
> >
> >
> > Who am I if I am not a wage laborer? That is the question. If the
> culture and individual can’t answer that but the economists and politicians
> go ahead and take away the category of wage labor, well, there will be a
> society wide equivalent of an identity crisis or nervous breakdown.
> >
> >
> >
> > Of course, the elephant in the room is *the massive and ever increasing
> economic inequality.* Remember when Piketty was a best seller? The math he
> laid out is still true. The whole compounding interest thing still holds.
> UBI may be a nonstarter but something (somebody?) has to give.
> >
> >
> >
> > Instead of justifying UBI to people taking issue, I often ask "what else
> sounds good that is as radical in its admission of the need for
> redistribution?” My answer has something to do with an education
> renaissance/revolution, but that is another story.
> >
> >
> >
> > Fall colors in Vermont.
> >
> >
> >
> > zak
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Oct 8, 2019, at 2:55 PM, nysa71 <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Gregg,
> >
> > Here's a link to the Job Guarantee FAQ by Pavlina Tcherneva, Associate
> Professor of Economics at Bard University and research scholar at the Levy
> Institute. She specializes in Modern Monetary Theory and public policy, and
> is one of the foremost experts on the Job Guarantee proposal. Besides the
> FAQ, there's all kinds of publications and videos on the JG, (plus other
> topics, including Pavlina's issues with the UBI).
> >
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.pavlina-2Dtcherneva.net_job-2Dguarantee-2Dfaq&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=GnlnhKhfaXgzXHtv49mZRgbwzURspoigX2ZFwCDpoh4&s=s1KIakCBK5p7I-6c0En59v_9nhxsdbJLzDPkw4NeI0w&e=
> <https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Furldefense.proofpoint.com-252Fv2-252Furl-253Fu-253Dhttps-2D3A-5F-5Fwww.pavlina-2D2Dtcherneva.net-5Fjob-2D2Dguarantee-2D2Dfaq-2526d-253DDwIFaQ-2526c-253DeLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn-5F5nBEmmeq0-2526r-253DHPo1IXYDhKClogP-2DUOpybo6Cfxxz-2DjIYBgjO2gOz4-2DA-2526m-253DGnlnhKhfaXgzXHtv49mZRgbwzURspoigX2ZFwCDpoh4-2526s-253Ds1KIakCBK5p7I-2D6c0En59v-5F9nhxsdbJLzDPkw4NeI0w-2526e-253D-26data-3D02-257C01-257C-257C8e5574a3bec541883fa208d74ccdfcd3-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C637062319897040983-26sdata-3DHH9yeFd7U1BzqvYWGNL20lIMqn0geBD4yK-252Fig2tconc-253D-26reserved-3D0%26d%3DDwMF-g%26c%3DeLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0%26r%3DHPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A%26m%3DSoi1vv5PlSKY4UvGgbeXe9Tg304k_-IruzOPeREvoWY%26s%3Dp2kxJNSbi1ORlsPeU2LX-Mgba2MTJUBQLk7fIAymN8Q%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cb654280f1f4643b0eab408d74d866134%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637063111857673585&sdata=PDu5tH9qCSTtvXWFQRKBClr3isXCvD%2FE3K1Ct7kILYs%3D&reserved=0>
> >
> > ~ Jason Bessey
> >
> >
> >
> > Job Guarantee FAQ | pavlina-tcherneva
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tuesday, October 8, 2019, 09:41:00 AM EDT, Peter Lloyd Jones <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Bad email program…
> >
> > Should be:
> >
> > Beyond that there is no substantive threat.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Peter Lloyd Jones
> > [log in to unmask]
> > 562-209-4080
> >
> > Sent by determined causes that no amount of will is able to thwart.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Oct 8, 2019, at 9:37 AM, Peter Lloyd Jones <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you Joseph for your note about tempering expectations.
> >
> >
> >
> > As a former mediocre road racer, I have a lot of experience in riding
> around on race tracks during races. Yang is using his
> presidential-candidate platform to promote certain ideas. Beyond that there
> is  substantive threat. O’Rourke has stated that he will take away our
> guns. They are both introducing progressive concepts because, without
> blood, politics moves slowly. You need to start somewhere. They know that
> they have sacraficed their candidacies to mold allowable discussions moving
> forward. Years ago if you just asked if weed might have medical uses, your
> political career was over. Today...
> >
> >
> >
> > This is about ideas, which might be good and bad ideas, but it’s not
> about who will be the next president.
> >
> >
> >
> > Vote early and often.
> >
> > Best to all,
> >
> > Peter
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Peter Lloyd Jones
> > [log in to unmask]
> > 562-209-4080
> >
> > Sent by determined causes that no amount of will is able to thwart.
> >
> >
> >
> > ############################
> >
> > 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
> <https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Flistserv.jmu.edu-252Fcgi-2Dbin-252Fwa-253FSUBED1-253DTOK-2DSOCIETY-2DL-2526A-253D1-26data-3D02-257C01-257C-257C8e5574a3bec541883fa208d74ccdfcd3-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C637062319897050993-26sdata-3DA-252FmuNQHSwb7AwTMF0kx4ko8FUygy3h7TWzJg4QrZrn8-253D-26reserved-3D0%26d%3DDwMF-g%26c%3DeLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0%26r%3DHPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A%26m%3DSoi1vv5PlSKY4UvGgbeXe9Tg304k_-IruzOPeREvoWY%26s%3D_gcjHx3cea9mfp9d4MqTe4ynd9C2cbnWEgUrFfLQiJM%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cb654280f1f4643b0eab408d74d866134%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637063111857683589&sdata=GnDkIgvl4tDuZJVc92OQRAAPK4CmoqK2K7YqTiL8Otg%3D&reserved=0>
> >
> > ############################
> >
> > 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
> <https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Flistserv.jmu.edu-252Fcgi-2Dbin-252Fwa-253FSUBED1-253DTOK-2DSOCIETY-2DL-2526A-253D1-26data-3D02-257C01-257C-257C8e5574a3bec541883fa208d74ccdfcd3-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C637062319897050993-26sdata-3DA-252FmuNQHSwb7AwTMF0kx4ko8FUygy3h7TWzJg4QrZrn8-253D-26reserved-3D0%26d%3DDwMF-g%26c%3DeLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0%26r%3DHPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A%26m%3DSoi1vv5PlSKY4UvGgbeXe9Tg304k_-IruzOPeREvoWY%26s%3D_gcjHx3cea9mfp9d4MqTe4ynd9C2cbnWEgUrFfLQiJM%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cb654280f1f4643b0eab408d74d866134%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637063111857683589&sdata=GnDkIgvl4tDuZJVc92OQRAAPK4CmoqK2K7YqTiL8Otg%3D&reserved=0>
> >
> >
> >
> > ############################
> >
> > 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
> <https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Flistserv.jmu.edu-252Fcgi-2Dbin-252Fwa-253FSUBED1-253DTOK-2DSOCIETY-2DL-2526A-253D1-26data-3D02-257C01-257C-257C8e5574a3bec541883fa208d74ccdfcd3-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C637062319897050993-26sdata-3DA-252FmuNQHSwb7AwTMF0kx4ko8FUygy3h7TWzJg4QrZrn8-253D-26reserved-3D0%26d%3DDwMF-g%26c%3DeLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0%26r%3DHPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A%26m%3DSoi1vv5PlSKY4UvGgbeXe9Tg304k_-IruzOPeREvoWY%26s%3D_gcjHx3cea9mfp9d4MqTe4ynd9C2cbnWEgUrFfLQiJM%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cb654280f1f4643b0eab408d74d866134%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637063111857693602&sdata=FvNF40wRK7PmNx%2FkUOIJZDwZk99J0GN2y0mBYwwSk7Y%3D&reserved=0>
> >
> > ############################
> >
> > 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
> <https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Flistserv.jmu.edu-252Fcgi-2Dbin-252Fwa-253FSUBED1-253DTOK-2DSOCIETY-2DL-2526A-253D1-26data-3D02-257C01-257C-257C8e5574a3bec541883fa208d74ccdfcd3-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C637062319897060999-26sdata-3DQX-252Fd4iEvXYy4vIxAeoP7tzjsJ8w4bc36eXdi0g-252FSBDU-253D-26reserved-3D0%26d%3DDwMF-g%26c%3DeLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0%26r%3DHPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A%26m%3DSoi1vv5PlSKY4UvGgbeXe9Tg304k_-IruzOPeREvoWY%26s%3DV_5cnHPDBXsLkGHig9fFkIF7IQiWJIzpsUis7WeZFDY%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cb654280f1f4643b0eab408d74d866134%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637063111857703611&sdata=YwxxJCfS1sqqFurF4cl7SAzPaWAAs4K00v%2FAr87k9vQ%3D&reserved=0>
> >
> > ############################
> > 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
> <https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Flistserv.jmu.edu-252Fcgi-2Dbin-252Fwa-253FSUBED1-253DTOK-2DSOCIETY-2DL-2526A-253D1-26data-3D02-257C01-257C-257C8e5574a3bec541883fa208d74ccdfcd3-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C637062319897060999-26sdata-3DQX-252Fd4iEvXYy4vIxAeoP7tzjsJ8w4bc36eXdi0g-252FSBDU-253D-26reserved-3D0%26d%3DDwMF-g%26c%3DeLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0%26r%3DHPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A%26m%3DSoi1vv5PlSKY4UvGgbeXe9Tg304k_-IruzOPeREvoWY%26s%3DV_5cnHPDBXsLkGHig9fFkIF7IQiWJIzpsUis7WeZFDY%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cb654280f1f4643b0eab408d74d866134%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637063111857713624&sdata=SYSpS6eTQRZYh3adQC1ZBXskz3CfScmyLMLdYcNSzKQ%3D&reserved=0>
> >
> > ############################
> > 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
> <https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Flistserv.jmu.edu-252Fcgi-2Dbin-252Fwa-253FSUBED1-253DTOK-2DSOCIETY-2DL-2526A-253D1-26data-3D02-257C01-257C-257C8e5574a3bec541883fa208d74ccdfcd3-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C637062319897071009-26sdata-3DJ7rYnXGGB7Pkfd3ERn3twMPQQv0FGGs7YeMsqjl8RIw-253D-26reserved-3D0%26d%3DDwMF-g%26c%3DeLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0%26r%3DHPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A%26m%3DSoi1vv5PlSKY4UvGgbeXe9Tg304k_-IruzOPeREvoWY%26s%3D-o52OQFStw2NPYgV1ExeVZ1ZLpEJBznAtVNA867kVsc%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cb654280f1f4643b0eab408d74d866134%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637063111857713624&sdata=DALBAGXfA%2B%2FObNK0GnQgs4pV05K6USGuIajUE3LTUP4%3D&reserved=0>
> >
>
> ############################
>
> 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
> <https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Flistserv.jmu.edu-252Fcgi-2Dbin-252Fwa-253FSUBED1-253DTOK-2DSOCIETY-2DL-2526A-253D1-26data-3D02-257C01-257C-257C8e5574a3bec541883fa208d74ccdfcd3-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C637062319897071009-26sdata-3DJ7rYnXGGB7Pkfd3ERn3twMPQQv0FGGs7YeMsqjl8RIw-253D-26reserved-3D0%26d%3DDwMF-g%26c%3DeLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0%26r%3DHPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A%26m%3DSoi1vv5PlSKY4UvGgbeXe9Tg304k_-IruzOPeREvoWY%26s%3D-o52OQFStw2NPYgV1ExeVZ1ZLpEJBznAtVNA867kVsc%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cb654280f1f4643b0eab408d74d866134%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637063111857723628&sdata=fLRo1JF9aPErOFcJe1Xr109bTW9ZVG77T%2FVBRlrChAE%3D&reserved=0>
>
> ############################
>
> 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
> <https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Flistserv.jmu.edu-252Fcgi-2Dbin-252Fwa-253FSUBED1-253DTOK-2DSOCIETY-2DL-2526A-253D1-26data-3D02-257C01-257C-257C8e5574a3bec541883fa208d74ccdfcd3-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C637062319897081014-26sdata-3DLcjyb9Cwoxh5Xu9VbtpsCm4HwOFo3cmrblAEtqceRGw-253D-26reserved-3D0%26d%3DDwMF-g%26c%3DeLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0%26r%3DHPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A%26m%3DSoi1vv5PlSKY4UvGgbeXe9Tg304k_-IruzOPeREvoWY%26s%3D6w8DdWfVEKEAMwcZl4gK2U8T9BHCt2BvIcfczuq6Hbk%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cb654280f1f4643b0eab408d74d866134%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637063111857733641&sdata=cNT%2B8zYUGKifRpM3rQxtXcm1HiRm6jnsgJ2jmQfxk5E%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> ############################
>
> 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
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Flistserv.jmu.edu-252Fcgi-2Dbin-252Fwa-253FSUBED1-253DTOK-2DSOCIETY-2DL-2526A-253D1-26data-3D02-257C01-257C-257Cb654280f1f4643b0eab408d74d866134-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C637063111857743645-26sdata-3Dv0HXTX8NHmR4w3fEkWnbQtIRqTp8nIeDOIi6ufmzXjg-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMF-g&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=o84KKtKHz719_S3TzEHuqek6xC0kvS1snlXKr9uP8Oc&s=hQbwir041aISb4-CcruyEtIUlh-g9YBPzljrauy7HpQ&e=>
>
>
>
> ############################
>
> 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
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Flistserv.jmu.edu-252Fcgi-2Dbin-252Fwa-253FSUBED1-253DTOK-2DSOCIETY-2DL-2526A-253D1-26data-3D02-257C01-257C-257Cb654280f1f4643b0eab408d74d866134-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C637063111857743645-26sdata-3Dv0HXTX8NHmR4w3fEkWnbQtIRqTp8nIeDOIi6ufmzXjg-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMF-g&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=o84KKtKHz719_S3TzEHuqek6xC0kvS1snlXKr9uP8Oc&s=hQbwir041aISb4-CcruyEtIUlh-g9YBPzljrauy7HpQ&e=>
>
> ############################
>
> 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
>
> ############################
>
> 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
>
> ############################
>
> 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