Gregg, Appreciate the response. Maybe I should’ve clarified my former statement: I don’t mean to be contrarian for its own sake. I’m just trying to understand like you are. I will look through these materials and give them the attention they deserve. Thanks. Eric On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 3:49 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx < [log in to unmask]> wrote: > Eric, > > > > You say you don’t mean to come across as contrarian and yet you > consistently do. You might reflect some on that. > > > > To address your two questions, first I suggest you look through the > attached book, *A Guide for the Perplexed > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_A-5FGuide-5Ffor-5Fthe-5FPerplexed&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=jGqSWlsbQ4JvbW-vKOJFEV5tW-fM0JZZvN4tevlO6t0&s=OF30l7b4z4medjEexN7E-VnOx6ZgrylWGtkRIxZQdBA&e= >*. It is > designed to be an easy read. Check out pages 15-27 and you will see one > source for the A + B + C + D analysis. > > Here is the particularly relevant portion: > > It also can be connected to Wilber’s Great Nest of Being, as he > elaborated in The Marriage of Sense and Soul. And other places. Like > Aristotle’s scales of nature > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Great-5Fchain-5Fof-5Fbeing&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=jGqSWlsbQ4JvbW-vKOJFEV5tW-fM0JZZvN4tevlO6t0&s=Mx3JFE26IKdWou9vuEu0Ofph9hFn7IolebRrRUy_TY4&e= >. If you want a more > up-to-date analysis of these scales/level/layers/orders, see Cahoone’s The > Orders of Nature > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Orders-2DNature-2DLawrence-2DCahoone_dp_1438444168&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=jGqSWlsbQ4JvbW-vKOJFEV5tW-fM0JZZvN4tevlO6t0&s=GE898h65su-TEk_nt0QGucsxpRRAjypcZe5gVkdodc8&e= > (I > have the pdf I can share). The argument that Matter, Life, Mind, and > Culture emerge out of an implicate order of “pure” Energy-Information which > represent distinguishable variable clusters and this is mapped by > scientific knowledge is central to the entire UTOK project. See, e.g., the > original ToK Manifesto I wrote more than 20 years ago > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__medium.com_unified-2Dtheory-2Dof-2Dknowledge_the-2Dtree-2Dof-2Dknowledge-2Dsystem-2Dmanifesto-2Ddc29b7edab4b&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=jGqSWlsbQ4JvbW-vKOJFEV5tW-fM0JZZvN4tevlO6t0&s=f02ruSQ5x560Qd6mCkEQI20YrIaiI8VnLKlic3iSFlk&e= >. > > > > > As for my argument about mind and the need for an up-to-date descriptive > metaphysics that maps it into the five domains depicted by the Map of Mind, > I strongly recommend you watch my two educational videos on the *Problem > of Psychology and Its Solution*. > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__drive.google.com_file_d_1Jn1l5-2D-2Dy9MrkphbRLirXgAbYCNwj5uEI_view-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=jGqSWlsbQ4JvbW-vKOJFEV5tW-fM0JZZvN4tevlO6t0&s=1tGe3pFD9-7C76EV9KaQZTrN4nDU0nUS53t4tBVSqCw&e= > (Part I) > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__drive.google.com_file_d_1NPbgaR1rsnAxWdkTV4idNTv0qtx6ty7H_view-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=jGqSWlsbQ4JvbW-vKOJFEV5tW-fM0JZZvN4tevlO6t0&s=eRVV0p67D6LqjiCB1GKiHMux_JLHJeb_SKR3KSPSo8c&e= > (Part II) > > > > I also recommend you watch the series I did with John Vervaeke on Untangling > the World Knot of Consciousness > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_202012_untangling-2Dthe-2Dworld-2Dknot-2Dconsciousness&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=jGqSWlsbQ4JvbW-vKOJFEV5tW-fM0JZZvN4tevlO6t0&s=WtfUAFl059YxQkt_-IMTDqWtCcKQyrHM4nR_Ka1j7CI&e= >. > The last four episodes spell out precisely this argument, building off of > John’s 4P/3R metatheory of cognition > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_202101_john-2Dvervaeke-2Ds-2Dbrilliant-2D4p3r-2Dmetatheory-2Dcognition&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=jGqSWlsbQ4JvbW-vKOJFEV5tW-fM0JZZvN4tevlO6t0&s=hjX9nFO_1ULGsp4KilDthdPy0kj20t1IGzD-8jmntCk&e= >. > > > > > I know it will take some time, but if you really want your presence on the > list to have a different feel to it, I encourage you to make the effort. > > > Regards, > Gregg > > > > *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion < > [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *easalien > *Sent:* Monday, April 12, 2021 8:20 PM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: TOK: Clip from my talk with John > > > > *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. > ------------------------------ > > Hey Gregg, > > > > Can you explain what Z + A + B + C + D + X actually means? Do these > variables correspond to reality? > > > > I don’t ask these questions to be contrarian. It just seems your making > enormous assumptions based on scant evidence. For example, how do you > justify splitting the mind into 3 (or 5) separate parts? > > > > Eric > > > > On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 7:18 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx < > [log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Many thanks, friend. I am glad you like it. I found your description > enriching. > > > > I am definitely keen on the idea that I fell into the problem of > psychology precisely because there was a massive hole in our naturalistic > thinking, which can be specified by the Enlightenment Gap. It is obvious > that the Enlightenment failed to give us a coherent naturalistic scientific > philosophy that was aligned with human subjectivity and purpose (i.e., the > human self, soul, spirit). That was because they had the wrong ontological > picture. The right ontological picture is pretty clear to me these days. > Let me lay it out for you. I know, Chance, you know much of this already. > But what follows is a slightly new, simplified version that you might find > worth reading through. > > > > First, there is an “Energy-Information Implicate Order” that Matter > emerges out of. It does not have the same kind of space-time causal > properties as macroscopic matter. Let’s call this “Z”. At the Big > Beginning/Big Bang, we see that Energy-Information Singularity transforms > and differentiates and this is the beginning of the classic material world. > Here > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_watch-3Fv-3Dqq3YDfui-2DtI&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=gxXSO6A79Z_BVV4glb5ybXMg022tHHohr_wqIzvZdFI&s=wYY_m39VX2-T2zJzD7ACOBnlAvRUPpRfG6XJfkf5ai8&e=> > is a nice easy to follow 15 minute video on the first three minutes. This > change reaction gives rise to the first dimension of complexification on > the ToK, represented as “Matter”. > > > > We can call Matter “dimension A”. The macroscopic “explicate order” arises > out of the Energy-Information implicate order. How this happens can be > framed as the “reality-measurement-emergent” questions/problems that makes > interpreting quantum mechanics so difficult. The intersection of the > Energy-Information and the Matter dimension is nevertheless clearly framed > by quantum mechanics and general relativity. The foundation is quantum > relativistic field theory, which shows that we can think of material > particles and forces as emerging out of fluctuations in the > Energy-Information field. The cohering of particles and forces give rise to > macroscopic objects with entangled histories. This is the atomic universe > and above at the macroscopic scale. The emergent phenomena include things > like atoms and chemical molecules, and stars and galaxies and, of course, > space and time as we experience them (in contrast to their “shape” at the > implicate order). So now we have *Z* + A. The physical sciences map *Z* + > *A*. > > > > We then get Life. Life is a fundamentally different kind of emergence > because it involves the “epistemic” process of knowing. By knowing I mean > that cells process information and communicate in networks to generate a > novel complex adaptive plane. The biological forms and processes represent > a different kind of causal process. That is why there is a shape-break on > the ToK. The new Life cone is the new living epistemic process involves the > way living things “know” about the external reality. We can call Life > “dimension B”. So now we have *Z* + A + *B*, with B mapped by biological > sciences > > > > We then, of course, have Mind, which we can call “dimension C”. Once > again, we have a fundamentally different kind of “epistemic” process. This > time, via animal sensory-movement relations that give rise to the animal > behavioral dimension of activity, which the ToK innovatively characterizes > as “Mind”. Way too much conceptual grammar is devoted to “the mind” and way > to little is devoted to seeing Mind in nature. As someone who is deeply > knowledgeable about ethology, I know you get this. But I am just spelling > it out. Of course, this evolutionary model allows us to clearly frame > neurocognition into subjective conscious experience in animals. Behavioral > Investment Theory gives the metatheory. The Map of Mind1,2,3 gives the > metaphysics, framing Mind1 as neurocognition and Mind2 as subjective > conscious experience. Now we have* Z* + A +* B* + *C*. C should have been > mapped by the basic psychological sciences, but the problem of psychology > emerged because the Enlightenment gave us the wrong grammar to talk about > “the mind”. > > > > Finally, we get the talking mind of human persons, Mind3 and the Culture > that Mind3 produces. The Culture-Person plane is “dimension D”. The network > of evolving systems of justification that function to coordinate people in > socio-ecological arrangements through time. It is the clear way the ToK > carves nature at the *B* to *C* and then *C* to *D* “joint points” that > it affords us a new and proper way to think about the animal-mind, > culture-person relationship. So now we have *Z* + *A* + *B* + *C* + *D*. > > > > Then we get the evolution of analytic justification into transcendent > knowing. This is the process of: (1) knowing about knowledge; (2)knowing > about reality and (3) knowing about the knower. Knowing about knowledge in > the West starts with the Greek and the Pythagoreans into Socrates into > Plato and Aristotle. They give us the birth of philosophical reflections > that attempt to climb out of the socially constructed “cave” and see the > forms of the world as they are. Then we get knowing about reality via > modern empirical natural science, which gives us the correspondent approach > grounded in math and method. > > > > Then we get knowing about the knower via UTOK. Let’s call this *X*. > > > > So now we have *Z* + *A* + *B* + *C* + *D* + *X*. > > > > We can depict this on the scale of time by complexification as follows: > > > > [image: A][image: D][image: X][image: Z][image: B][image: C][image: Time > since beginning of Matter][image: Z] > > > > > > *Z* = Energy-Information Implicate Order > > *A* = Material-Object Explicate Order of Complexity > > *B* = Living-Organism Order of Complexification > > *C *= Mental-Animal Order of Complexification > > *D* = Cultural-Person Order of Complexification > > *X* = Metaphysical Scientific Knower that Observes/Describes/Explains > Behavior Change > > > > Contextualized in the Tree and the Garden, the iQuad formulation is about > developing a logos approach to nonduality, such that it represents the case > where observer equals observed. Thus, it is the special case where > > the onto-epistemology of ontic-epistemic relations of observer/observed > nonduality can be represented as *X* = *Z* + *A* + *B* + *C* + *D. * > > > > This could be called “The Nondual Singularity Theory of Observer (Psyche) > = Observed (Behavior)” or something like that… > > Big love, brother. > Gregg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion < > [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Chance McDermott > *Sent:* Saturday, April 10, 2021 2:33 PM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: TOK: Clip from my talk with John > > > > *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, > > > > I resonate with the mission statement: *"We are seeking a coherent, > naturalistic ontology that can revitalize the human soul and spirit in the > 21st century"* > > > > It appears to me to be dense, precise, and uplifting. > > > > Best, > > > > -Chance > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 10:04 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx < > [log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Hi TOK List, > > > > I am working with Christian Gross to set up the “UTOKing with Gregg > Podcast”. We will be formally announcing it Monday, and the first episode > will be released on Thursday. Apropos of Voices with Vervaeke (I was John’s > first guest), John is the first guest. Given the discussions on the list, I > thought I would share the two minute clip as a preview (thanks to Christian > for finding and selecting this clip). > > > > Here it is: > > > > * UTOKing with John Vervaeke - Clip.mp4 > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__drive.google.com_file_d_1kmAvCL4gVWCF75ooXrdMHSl4awuj2Zrw_view-3Fusp-3Ddrive-5Fweb&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=wjF8cZoiFchamTuxBdDEmw&m=AYFX0kB-9msai7Cux39UQ5sMlWA0a5jcO5wReMl34TA&s=AOMThfpnVBKU99d0Djl5uQKCCN80cV3jK1AaDX-LVgs&e=>* > > > > And this is the quote we are speaking about, which frames the clip and > much of the discussion: > > > > > > Best, > > Gregg > > ############################ > > 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 > ############################ 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