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 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:

 

 

 

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

  

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