Hi Gregg, I think that the problem is two-fold, but it shares a common
base.

1) on one hand, there seems to be a problem of tone (too arrogant?). I
think this is pretty common among scientists. Take for example a blog by
Massimo Pigliucci I have recently read about plants and intelligence
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__medium.com_science-2Dand-2Dphilosophy_no-2Dplants-2Ddont-2Dthink-2Dc599c8bc9822&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=uk0ydGGjiC4NBZmuBwKwcVHLq7VWHlL0T8M_RqRPmtw&s=5sITdvS8L-_6MTlDtfCqb76uiH4UZTglZAwjxqVqXO0&e= >.
Pigliucci arrogantly smashes what he believes is an idiot new ageist myth
about the intelligence of plants. In doing this, he legitimately points out
that to anthropomorphize other living beings is a terrible mistake. He is
right, but he forgot that we do not have a plain and consensual definition
of intelligence, so he built all his arguments on a shaky assumption  and
he ends up being just annoying, rather than educational.

Maybe the problem here is similar. Do we have a shared and consensual
definition of Mind? No we haven't. And I know you know this pretty well, as
you dedicated all your academic career pointing it out. So, yes, some (like
you) argue that the "mind plane of existence" is autonomous from other
planes of complexity, but I would say that the majority of scientists won't
be so sure. Do you have a great number of reasons to argue the mind plane
of complexity is autonomous? Well, maybe since it is not a shared
assumption it would be better to explain this rather than taking it for
granted as a consensual truth, like the earth going around the sun and not
vice versa.
I know you already did in several blogs and papers, but as it has not
become a widespread and shared theory, it is not surprising the average
readers don't understand it. And, more importantly, it can not be treated
as the earth going around the sun, because it is very far from having this
degree of certainty.

2) A problem of communication. All the UTOK system is aimed at overcoming
the vocabulary fragmentation in psychology and science writ large, but I
fear it often ends up being another hyper_specialistic idiosyncratic
vocabulary, in which many acronyms (TOK, ToK, UTOK, UT, UA, are difficult
to disentangle and are quite impossible to be easily caught and
remembered). This is a paradox of course, but a significant one.

I think your meta theory is one of the best "in town" but I think that
often the way it is presented is not user friendly, because it is perceived
from "the inside" rather than from the outside. Have you ever wondered what
would have happened if you had discovered your own theory as a bystander?
(in this fictional example, the UTOK being elaborated by another
theoretical psychologist)?

I do not know, but I can say what happened to me. If it hadn't been for
your warm and competent, even enlightening private response, I think I
wouldn't be here and I wouldn't have gone so far in studying the UTOK. I
think it is a good example, because I work at a high-level of abstraction,
so I wouldn't say I am the average reader....The UTOK now helps me everyday
in my practical life as a psychologist and in my theoretical way as an
academician, but it wouldn't be so if you did not answer my mail. And
that's a pity.

I think that you should translate this "private" back-and-forth in your
writing style, and you have to keep in mind always the reader, rather than
(just) your thoughts .

For example, I think the one of your best ideas is the Period Table of
Behavior, both in the substance and in the form it is conveyed. It links up
to a well-known scientific construct; even uneducated people can relate to
it. That makes it more approachable, more friendly and eventually more easy
to understand and remember.

I know you are not a marketing-guy, as you always say, but I think that
seeing this as a mere issue of marketing would be arrogant, and would be
counterproductive to the UTOK project. I think that "marketing" in this
soft-sense is a matter of an healthy humility, rather than a matter of
manipulation.

I hope this feedback is useful,

A

Il gio 4 mar 2021, 13:30 Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> ha
scritto:

> Hi TOK List,
>
>
>
>   Last week, I did a blog “There Have Been Four Big Bangs, Not Three”
> <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&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=uk0ydGGjiC4NBZmuBwKwcVHLq7VWHlL0T8M_RqRPmtw&s=-n0P0zy_s63PkMbl_h3B1qGLu7795po88Ls0HKDnl1k&e= >
> which started with Holmes Rolston’s book, *Three Big Bangs:
> Matter-Energy, Life, Mind* and then went on to say that this is sort of
> helpful, but he is wrong and this should be clear, as it is known that
> there have been “four big bangs”.
>
>
>
> I wrote the blog in what might be called my “assertive matter-of-fact
> voice”. My wife Andee tells me when I am in that voice, I often don’t come
> across as assertive and matter of fact, but can easily come across as a
> know-it-all asshole. Indeed, this is exactly how the blog was received. I
> first received a backchannel, asking me to reword the final statement. This
> was from someone I trust and respect.
>
>
>
> And then, I got this message from the Editors at PT:
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for sharing this. However, we are concerned that your posts are
> increasingly harder to understand. Can you please explain this in simpler
> terms for the average reader? Please let us know. This post is currently
> not on the homepage. Thank you for your attention.
>
>
>
> To me, this feels weird, and I definitely would love feedback or
> suggestions on framing ToK basics. By that I mean…there is an established
> literature that clearly and obviously demonstrates that if you are going to
> conceptualize the world in terms of “big bangs” in the way that Rolston
> did, he is simply wrong. He collapses the “mind” into a single dimension,
> when it is now known to be separable.
>
>
>
> The physicist head part of me cannot fathom why that is not obvious. The
> feminine therapist heart part of me can. I would love help putting this
> together in a way that is digestible for people and would welcome any
> feedback.
>
>
>
> 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=uk0ydGGjiC4NBZmuBwKwcVHLq7VWHlL0T8M_RqRPmtw&s=nlL6IFyIUSZA7_jv8EjtYCyv8XA1Mz5ao4uGD-Kl3-k&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