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. 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” 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://www.unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org/

 

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

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