Hi TOK Folks,

 

The attached paper on “worldviews” came across my feed today. It seemed like a reasonable taxonomy on various positions taken on the “mind-matter” relation.

It lists out the following:

Idealism  –  Panpsychism  –  Dualism  –  Dual-Aspect Monism  –  Emergentism  –  Physicalism

 

Here is a quick rundown on how I see UTOK in relation to these different perspectives:

 

• UTOK is definitely not a primarily idealist system—it is too tied to scientific realism for that. However, as a first and foremost a theory of knowledge, UTOK emphasizes that the ontic reality is framed by knowledge (which, when held by the knower is ontology), which in turn must entail epistemology; thus, as a metaphysically framed system, it carries a clear place for the core Kantian epistemological insight that knowing is at least somewhat dependent up on the framing and categories of the knower.

 

• UTOK is not panpsychic in any strong sense of the word. Atoms do not have “bits” of psyche in them. However, Whitehead’s panexperientialism is closer to a UTOK view. We do need to think about objects in fields of relation, which brings in concepts like position and information, which are “quasi” psyche terms. Also, it is crucial to make a key point here about modern physics. The UTOK interprets modern physics as pointing to an “Energy Information Field” as an implicate order beneath the standard dimension of Matter (which is made up of massive objects in 3D space, 1D time). An “energy information field” is, in some ways (but not others!), more like a “mental field” than a standard picture of matter in motion mechanics. In that sense as well, there is a “quasi-“ pan psychic interpretation of UTOK that can be given. So, there are some associations here that can be made, but UTOK definitely does not align with a strong version of panpsychism.

 

• UTOK is definitely a “one-world” worldview rather than standard Cartesian substance dualism or a standard dualistic worldview of many traditional religions. (Although some of the dualist people mentioned in the attached paper were not necessary substance dualists in the standard sense).

 

• UTOK can “get along” with dual aspect monism, but it prefers a more complicated differentiation of a “many aspect monism,” that is most clearly represented in what I sometimes call “iQuadratic Aspect Monism”, which gives the following four primary epistemological frames that aspectualize different features of the knower-known relationship:

phenomenological-subjective-first person empirical, (Coin)

scientific-objective third person empirical behavioral propositional, (Tree)

ethical-intersubjective narrative collective (Garden)

and transjective participatory (pragmatic phronesis?)

 

• UTOK is definitely an emergentist frame. It emphasizes the stratification of nature and the ontological (not just epistemological) necessity of considering the levels and dimensions of complexification in nature to obtain a properly conforming grip on reality. Indeed, of the categories, emergent naturalism is probably the most basic way to describe the UTOK worldview. Moreover, it gives a model of emergence that EXPLICITLY rejects the Matter versus Mind “bipolar” framing of the question, and replaces that with an emergent Energy, Matter, Life, Mind, Culture into human knower frame that potentially shifts the entire frame from the basic assumptions from which the paper generates its classification.

 

• Given that it is a monist one world conception, and it starts with “physical” phenomena (i.e., Energy) placed in a “scientific realist” chronology that traces back to the Big Bang, UTOK can be reasonably characterized as a nonreductive physicalism, although such a classification is basically redundant with an emergent naturalism. In addition, although consistent with some physicalist frames, it is a theory of knowledge and does not see how explanations are appropriately framed by physics…scientific knowledge exists at the dimension of Culture. Strong reductive physicalism is unworkable and containing many contradictions from a philosophical/metaphysical vantage point, which the UTOK sees as central to a comprehensive and intelligible worldview.

 

Figured it might be helpful to see this. One big point I would add is that I think that the emergence of the “physical sciences” gave rise massive philosophical problems with which to define the mental. That is a key aspect of the Enlightenment Gap. And it is something I believe the UTOK has the key ingredients to solve. Thus, contra to the author, I do think we can transcend these categories and develop a clearer, more intelligible, coherent, comprehensive worldview that the current options afforded us.

Best,
Gregg