Dear TOK List,

  I would welcome feedback on a question of terminology I am wondering about. It has to do with the Periodic Table of Behavior and what to call the rows and columns. The diagram is attached, and here is the slide show on it. Here is what I would like some feedback on, if anyone is so inclined. My question is this:

  Should the “levels” refer to the rows of part, object, group in the system/field context and “dimensions” refer to the columns of Matter, Life, Mind and Culture? Or, should they be reversed, and have the “dimension” be part, object, group rows and levels refer to the columns of Matter, Life, Mind, and Culture?

  If you look at my history in writing, I used to use the terms fairly interchangeably, until the PTB popped, and I then differentiated them. I can offer the rationale for why I divided dimension and level the way I did, but it also is the case that it could have gone either way.

  Also, please be aware that in the ToK Big History paper, the TOK Exec Committee did, we introduced a new term for Matter, Life, Mind and Culture called the “planes of existence,” which is synonymous with the four qualitatively different dimensions of behavioral complexity. I am using planes of existence quite a bit in my current book. In addition, Joe M and I used this terminology in our paper on the PTB. However, I don’t think anyone read it, so I am not too committed to it 😊.

  Anyway, I am in the midst of writing about the Periodic Table of Behavior in the upcoming Unified Framework book, and would love to hear thoughts if anyone has any opinions one way or the other. I am sure it is something that many of you have spent lots of time thinking about 😊…

Best,
Gregg