Hi TOK List,
So I am in the process of writing my book on the Unified Framework. This weekend I took the opportunity to sketch out in as plain of language as possible for those with some familiarity with the Unified Framework, the “Theory of Knowledge” project that is so crucial to the Unified Framework. This essay carries the key pieces of the argument that I will be making more formally in the book. If folks end up reading it and have thoughts I would welcome that. If you would like the essay in a word document, just back channel me.
As you will see, the basic framing is that the modernist/science/Enlightenment project had a profound gap in it that left it not being able to be up to the task of generating a successful synthetic, consilient scientific humanistic philosophy. The Gap is that we lacked broad frames of understanding that effectively addressed and clarified, in one system, the relationship between “matter and mind” and the relationship between social and scientific knowledge. Failing a proper perspective, we could not sort out the complicated issues pertaining to ontology, epistemology, and ontic reality and develop an effective, comprehensive descriptive metaphysics that allowed for the effective organization of scientific knowledge. The failure that stems from the Enlightenment Gap is seen perhaps most clearly in the problem of psychology. It is, of course, now being seen very consequentially in the meaning and mental health crises that stem from the current chaotic fragmented pluralistic state of our knowledge. The Unified Framework is offered as a system that resolves the Enlightenment Gap, thus setting the stage for an Enlightenment 2.0 grounded in a metamodern sensibility and a coherent descriptive metaphysical system that is actually up to the task of organizing human knowledge in a way that positions us to engage in effective sense making and seek wisdom in the context of the emerging digital landscape.
Love to hear thoughts if you have them.
Best,
Gregg