Gregg,

Definitely poignant. Many would need to read more of your work to truly see
the salience of TOK's contributions, but you addressed that with various
links to other articles. Ontology has become an increasingly complex notion
for me. I am quite content to take the nondual route of undercutting (not
bypassing) knowing the unknown through beingness and all that nondual peak
experience stuff that we'll likely never be able to accurately put to
words. But in playing around with the concept like you have, coining the
term ontic itself as being an ontological category since we can't put
actually reality into a concept.

I bring this up because at the end of your article you state that TOK
effectively corresponds the ontic with the ontological, which to me seems
at least on the surface to be contradictory. I agree that TOK has clarified
epistemological frames to the extent that we can actually delineate a thing
from how we know it and even apply different epistemologies to the same
ontic (or perhaps the reverse would be more accurate). But if the ontic is
an ontogical category how can it correspond with ontology? Or rather how
can we know that they correspond? In terms of the development of the joint
points (the nonlinear aspect being another wrench maybe), we can say that
the ontic has flourished, but I am of the impression that we cannot know
that we have anything to do with it or that our ontogies are accurate at
all.

For example, if we're using the map and the territory to represent ontology
and the ontic, we can say that our map is accurate because we've been
following it and we haven't steered off the path(s). But how do we know
that on the level of the ontic that we aren't just aimlessly wandering
around empty space? If "we" are even "there," which naturalistic science is
fairly adamant on that we're not. And if we're being really critical about
it, does it even matter if its accurate or not so long as we think it is
and reality continues to flourish? I hope it is obvious I mean none of this
pejoratively, not at all.

Regards,

Nicholas G. Lattanzio, Psy.D.

On Wed, Feb 24, 2021, 10:20 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Hi TOK Folks,
>
>   I put up this quick blog today, hoping to make a clear point…
>
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_202102_there-2Dhave-2Dbeen-2Dfour-2Dbig-2Dbangs-2Dnot-2Dthree-23-5F-3D-5F&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=PwMdE2tw1zZtSqGt1AVpqP1UZwo5Qv12gFgE61VUIfo&s=pqMAliWo1i-ZWtmLo-COm2huP_9wvA3pMYAeGA_E7Xo&e= 
>
>
>
> Best,
> Gregg
>
> ___________________________________________
>
> Gregg Henriques, Ph.D.
> Professor
> Department of Graduate Psychology
> 216 Johnston Hall
> MSC 7401
> James Madison University
> Harrisonburg, VA 22807
> (540) 568-7857 (phone)
> (540) 568-4747 (fax)
>
>
> *Be that which enhances dignity and well-being with integrity.*
>
> Check out the Unified Theory Of Knowledge homepage at:
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org_&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=PwMdE2tw1zZtSqGt1AVpqP1UZwo5Qv12gFgE61VUIfo&s=eIxYBtelz4F8MWxgsmIX3M_4iXO3BQJHbHo4xuty9I8&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