Joe: thank you! Wonderful playback!
Where we differ:
You said "Or, if we're talking about "intentionality," then what are the mechanisms from Behavioral Investment Theory (BIT), for example, that help explain why people act with certain "intentions.""
It is my impression that BIT (as you put it) represents a regression towards the primitive from the vantage point that we seek to achieve here with a "metacultural perspective," by my understanding. It would represent a neurotic attachment to what the psychologists might call "excessive ego identification," or "an expression of previously adaptive behavior that is obsolescent, and no longer adaptive," by my understanding. It is towards mere animalian behaviorism, put in other language.
I would appreciate a more detailed description of what it means to you "to disagree with me" that "no force is required."
When I say that, I mean that all that is required is a genuine intention to seek to understand and be compassionate towards other human beings, and that no further force is required. I would say that if we seek to understand one another on this level, that is sufficient force. I would adjust my quite to mean "no further force is required."
Towards this end, I seek to understand and to make myself understandable to other human beings as the necessary and sufficient effort to allow consciousness to develop at its appropriate rate.
I cannot do better by working double shifts to achieve this goal. I will not save the world by my efforts, much as those who believe that Salvation cannot come from Good Works, I suppose. I guess that says my interpretation well enough.
Thank you again for your kind reply.
Bradley
Bradley H. Werrell, D.O. - This email is private and copyrighted by the author.
On Friday, October 30, 2020, 06:23:33 PM MST, Joseph Michalski <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
#yiv4176665585 P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}CAUTION:This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.Thanks Bradley. At the analytic level, I agree with your insights re: the tendency toward convergence around the homophily principle, which has been confirmed for decades with the sociological research on group sorting mechanisms & social distance mechanisms, as well as in the social psychological research on confirmation bias (and a complementary process known as selection bias) & more recently in the research on "echo chambers." I think you're intuitively recognizing and logically concluding that there must be such "a social force that functions in a manner that is analogous to 'social gravity'".... And that's exactly "correct," at least from my theoretical position. My own preliminary research includes a type "inverse-square law" function of social gravity (though I only occasionally use the term), expressed as, for example, the evidence I've gathered that aligns with a propositional statement I've published: "The confirmatory evidence for scientific theories varies inversely with the social distance between the analyst and the inner core of those who have developed and who endorse the theory." I will not spend time here explaining social distance further, but one key dimension involves "relational distance" or intimacy. And with whom are you most "intimate" or relationally closes to? Yourself. And as you move further away from "ground zero" or yourself at the center of your social universe, the social distance grows and the likelihood of support for your ideas or theories dissipates as well. In the one specific study that I did, the results were even more provocative. I concluded in my study that: "The process accelerates as analysts move much further away from the epicenter, perhaps in line with an “inverse square law” of social distance as the current results appear to suggest." That's just how the data landed in my specific study, but it certainly has made me think that there may be a similar principle operating in terms of gravitational attraction in social space that's not only "analogous" to physical space and mass -- but perhaps literally as a function of the operative social forces.
The only part where I think I diverge from what you have stated would be toward your conclusions, surrounding "Intentionality," "the natural course of human influence," and the idea that "no force is required." I think the point would be at the level of Mind and psychology would be to help identify the underlying mechanisms (like social influence) to help explicate further the nature of how social forces operate. Or, if we're talking about "intentionality," then what are the mechanisms from Behavioral Investment Theory (BIT), for example, that help explain why people act with certain "intentions." From the sociologist's perspective, we'd then supplement these ideas by examining the cultural and historical contexts within which these interactions occur, or the intersection between Mind and Culture to help us understand the behavioral dynamics and justifications further. But, of course, these ideas reflect my own intellectual biases toward "determinism" or at least a probabilistic approach to behavioral outcomes at both the individual and social aggregate (group) levels. In my defense, though, I'd suggest that every science runs up against these problems of determinism at the deepest levels, so I'm okay with that and have learned to live with my own sociological version of the Heisenberg principle! All the best, -Joe
Dr. Joseph H. Michalski
Professor
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 Bradley H. Werrell, D.O. <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2020 4:24 PM
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: A Hallowe'en scare? CAUTION:This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.Gregg,
What is "MLMC?"
I fear that the neologisms operate to obfuscate perhaps more frequently than to elucidate, unfortunately.
I would like to offer the extension of the observation that the mutuality of attraction between masses that we call gravity is reflected in the higher aspects of consciousness in that "likes attract likes" by the same principle of inevitability of confluence of destiny.
Just as walking north from every direction one takes from the South Pole inevitably leads to the North Pole due to the curvature of the Earth, the curvature of space-time inevitably causes massive bodies travelling "parallel" to one another to converge through the action of "gravity" in space, in time.
There is a similar function occurring in "social space-time" which is arranged in "Justifications" that must stem from some Intentionality of individuals. Parallel intentions MUST lead to a convergence of "like-minded" people due to the (unseen) social influence of a social force that functions in a manner that is analogous to "social gravity," it seems, by my interpretation of the resonance of such structures through the rudiments of consciousness, as considered above.
One presumes too much, by this reasoning, if one presumes that one need to artificially induce such a function to occur.
It occurs to me that one need open one's mind to seek those like-minded individuals who are using OTHER Justification Systems that yet share intuition/intentionality with yourself, AND to purify one's intentionality as one seeks to make genuine human connections with these like-minded people, and the natural course of Human Influence will generate the result that is required all in due time, as an inevitable function.
No force is required.
The suggestion that force is required sounds to me like a recipe for self-deception and social authoritarianism.
Bradley H. Werrell, D.O. - This email is private and copyrighted by the author.
On Friday, October 30, 2020, 05:04:48 AM MST, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Thanks, Waldemar. I think this is a wonderful use of the ToK System taxonomy. Yes, ala Lene’s comment, it doe feel as though the Four Horsemen of the “MLMC” apocalyptic wave may well be upon us.
All the more reason we need to continue to work to channel our Energy toward Meta-Cultural Consciousness E =>MC2!
Actually, let me rephrase this, ala Forrest Landry’s insights regarding Ephemeral Group Process to throw out a question:
How can we channel our energies to influence our lives and the lives of others to shift our investment patterns and institutions to transform, develop and cultivate ways of being and systems of justification that enhance dignity and well-being with integrity for all?
Maybe others can chime in with other kinds of questions would pertain to this set of concerns.
Best,
Gregg
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]>On Behalf Of Lene Rachel Andersen - Nordic Bildung
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2020 3:03 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: A Hallowe'en scare?
CAUTION:This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
The Four Horsemen of the...
On 29-10-2020 17:49, Waldemar Schmidt wrote:
CAUTION:This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Fellow TOKers:
I have been encouraged to share the following with you - in the hope that comments might be garnered.
While musing about the ToK the other night I managed to generate a pre-Hallowe'en scare - as if American politics today isn’t scary enough!
Well, if not a scare, then at least a stab of intense desperation.
I was pondering Gregg’s depiction of “the digital identity crisis,” which is composed of:
- The meaning crisis.
- The mental health crisis.
- The techno-environmental crisis.
- The digital globalization crisis.
In one perspective, these might seem as four distinct problems of the present.
I compared those 4 crises within the perspective of the 4 existential domains of the ToK:
- Matter.
- Life.
- Mind.
- Culture.
Then the horror arrived as it became apparent that the Anthropocene is characterized by existential crises inall four of those TOK foundations.
For instance:
- Matter.
- Our actions are leading to an (probably) unavoidable planet-changing and existential-threatening climatic alterations.
- Life.
- Our actions are producing to an uncontrolled biological extinction event.
- Our careless impingement upon and constricting many other life habitats has led to life-, societal-, and civilization-threatening pandemics
- Mind.
- Our actions are producing a myriad of mental health problems, of which suicide is one aspect.
- We are drifting further and further away from our historically effective community practices.
- Culture.
- Our failure to propagate effective education (at least, here in USA) has left us with an inadequate world view which is ineffective in coping with current problems and crises.
There are, of course, multiple other crises which may be added to each component of the list.
To make things worse yet, it is intuitively obvious that the identifiable problems in each TOK domain are interconnected and interactive!
In short, we are effectively destroying the foundations of our civilization (way of llife), if not our very existence.
Frightened yet?
If not, let me add another area: energy.
Matter appears to have “precipitated” out of the big bang energy.
The ToK doesn’t comment to much on energy except as a precursor to matter - ie, the foundation of the other 4 levels of existence.
That’s probably because, as Feynman noted, we really don’t adequately define or understand the concept of energy. ("Energy is a very subtle concept. It is very, very difficult to get right.” -https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikiquote.org_wiki_Richard-5FFeynman&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=IC4ceLSqidQsho6yvn9YH4EUVNcCioAyxdrvnKeK6BE&s=a_1agUAxJJ-MXeMTki0sQ7ChRWjnnqDIA4umnQri6ks&e= ; https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Richard-5FFeynman&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=IC4ceLSqidQsho6yvn9YH4EUVNcCioAyxdrvnKeK6BE&s=dy-unj2ehgekcFmuTxVyVMUImtEob1Xh_vc6XfBOosE&e= )
- We are profligate users of energy and choose to pollute our world providing it.
- We are quite effective at producing localized, sudden, massive amounts of destructive nuclear-based energy.
- We have not yet - and likely will not - master the production of energy in controlled fashion which does not result in pollution - ie, we surely need to turn to non-carbon- and non-nuclear forms of energy. Such a change will severely impact how we live - and we don’t have the resilience and wisdom (at this point) to endure that change.
At this point, I am frightened, or at least desperate.
It is interesting to find another way in which the ToK System provides a coherent and consilient understanding of our existence, practices, and results thereof.
In addition, the ToK system provides the foundation to anticipate and apprehend what is needed in order to overcome the course on which we are so obdurately entrenched.
Which leads me to wonder, is there enough time to do so?
I’m not at all assured of that.
Best regards,
Waldemar
Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD
(Perseveret et Percipiunt)
503.631.8044
Strive not to be a success, but rather to be of value. (A Einstein)
############################
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
--
Lene Rachel Andersen
Futurist, economist, author & keynote speaker
Co-founder of Nordic Bildung and the European Bildung Network
Full member of the Club of Rome
Nordic Bildung
Vermlandsgade 51, 2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark
www.nordicbildung.org
+45 28 96 42 40
############################
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