it elicits in me a wonderment about: 1) what would define 'good' and 'bad' in this context, 2) wondering what the value might be in dividing the core of people behaviors into binaries of such good/bad absolutisms, 3) why are the 'people' are the core? is this b/c we are that species and we are seeing through our own perceptions? and 4) what would it look like to move towards illuminating complexity in behavioral interactivity, expanding the variables that are embedded in present choices towards empathy in situated contexts rather than good/bad singularities. 



On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 5:55 PM, Joseph Michalski [log in to unmask] wrote:
Hi Gregg et al. The diagram outlines succinctly the different levels or dimensions of behavioral complexity (there's ongoing debate as to whether to refer to these as "levels" or "dimensions", but let's set that aside for the moment). 

Where the diagram needs further clarification would be at the center. There's a descriptive logic, or the same type of evaluative stance that applies to each of the outer rings:  an "is" type of ontic logic. At the inner core, however, you have shifted the logic to a type of moral evaluation or an implied "ought" or "should" frame of reference. Further to Zak's point, in a way, note that humans then do not merely evaluate the behavior of other humans, but we evaluate ALL of the other behaviors in both descriptive/scientific and moral/normative ways. For example, I'm struck by how almost every day I'll read a headline such as "Storm Blamed for Destroying over $50 million in Properties" or "COVID-19 Blamed for X Deaths" or "Pit Bull Blames for Killing Child". There's often an implicit moralistic type of evaluation that's applied to other entities, almost as forms of agentic behavior, when "bad things happen."

So, I'm just not clear on the logic of the metaphysical shift as currently outlined, since people evaluate every aspect of the universe (and the supernatural for that matter too!). Anyway, that's my "read" of the diagram without further explication on your part. Best, -Joe

Dr. Joseph H. Michalski

King’s University College at Western University

266 Epworth Avenue, DL-201

London, Ontario, Canada  N6A 2M3

Tel: (519) 433-3491

Email: [log in to unmask]

______________________

eiπ + 1 = 0


From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2020 12:50 PM
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: concentric circles of behavior
 

Hi TOK List,

  I wonder if this diagram elicits any reaction on the concept of behavior…note that the outer ring refers to the concept of object field change in general, which can be represented mathematically. For example, via three Cartesian coordinates of space and one of time…

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

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