Hi, Michael, I am familiar with the H2O metaphor for the emergence of 'mind' or the psychological, but in my view it still is reductionistic -- and / or it doesn't do the work it is supposed to do. All examples of emergence we have are of the same kind: new organizations of matter, with new emergent behaviors. But in my understanding, the 'hard problem' is deemed a hard problem, not because agent-like behaviors can emerge in complex systems -- that's all still third-person, objective description and focus; still a behavior-orientation. The hard problem is a hard problem because there seems to be no objective explanation of how or why any of that would lead to first-person, qualitative feeling or experience. There is a leap being made, where we assert that 'subjective feeling / experience is here,' but all we have accounted for is the emergence of new complex forms of the behavior of material forms. Not the irruption of 1p experience into a world utterly devoid of such until then. Best wishes, Bruce On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 4:23 PM Michael Mascolo <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > *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. > ------------------------------ > > Hi All: > > In a recent post, I expressed agreement with the an article that asserted > that that “the mind does not exist” – at least to the extent that “mind” > and “mental” are defined in contrast with “physical” and “material”. The > mental/physical dichotomy is a nasty one, as it suggests that “mind” is > something that is non-corporeal. Robert Ryan — in a post that I am deeply > grateful for — suggested that the ideas that I had advanced are > reductionistic. Robert inspired me to try to be clearer in my thoughts > about why “mind” and “mental” are unhelpful concepts, and how it is > possible to be both a materialist and to be non-reductionist. I believe > that it is possible to have a non-reductionist materialist conception of > consciousness and experience. And I think that this position aligns quite > closely indeed with Gregg’s system. > > I want to assert a concept that I have called *embodied emergence *(Mascolo > & Kallio, 2019) — the idea that psychological processes and states > (consciousness, experience) *are* complexly-organized biological > processes, albeit ones with novel emergent properties. (Please – stay with > me – there is something new here as I hope will become clear below.) Novel > psychological properties – e.g., awareness meaning, experience, qualia – > are emergent from biological processes in the sense that they are *not > found* in their base biological elements. However, these novel and > emergent psychological processes do not contain (nor do they have to) > properties that *override* or *conflict with* the properties of their > base elements. > > To make this argument, I want to show that qualitative transformations > routinely occur in everyday physical systems without creating structures > that override or conflict with the properties of their base elements. This > can be illustrated with the common example of how we get *liquid* – water > – from the combination of two *gasses* – hydrogen and oxygen. When we > combine hydrogen and oxygen – two gasses – we don’t get more gas – we get a > liquid – something with qualitatively different properties. How is this > possible? > > This is not a mysterious process. This well-understood process is > described in the graphic below. The short story: A water molecule, of > course, is formed with two molecules of hydrogen combine with one molecule > of oxygen. When this happens, individual water molecules connect to each > other through the formation of a * hydrogen bond* between the slightly > negatively-charged oxygen molecule of one water molecule and the slightly > positively-charged hydrogen molecule of another This bond, however, is very > weak. As a result, movement breaks the bond quickly, allowing molecules to > flow over each other – thus producing liquid. > > The novel way of understanding this process is to be found in the concept > of *EQUIVALENCE *(which, as I understand in mathematics, is different > from *equality*). Liquidity is an emergent property of H20 molecules > aggregated together. When we combine material gas of H and the material > gas of O, we get the material liquid of H20. When we say that liquid > emerges from a combination of H2 and O, we do not say that the > combination produces H20 *and then also* the liquid we call water. H20 > is the EQUIVALENT of the liquid we call water. The properties of water are > fully explainable by the novel structure that arises from the relations > between H2 and O. We don’t need to *add something* in addition to the > novel structure of H20 to explain its properties. We simply have a novel > structure with emergent properties. The properties that emerge from the > coordination of base elements are not to be found in those base elements. > In this way, the novel properties cannot be reduced to their base elements. > > I want to say that the *same basic equivalence relation* occurs between > base biological processes and emergent psychological processes. We have > biological structures and processes – cells, neurons, synapses, etc. > Psychological states and processes emerge from the complex organization of > biological structures and processes (in ways that we do not understand). > Now, here is the important philosophical point: When this happens, the > higher-order *biological organization* has novel psychological properties > – e.g., awareness, qualia, etc. – that are not found in the base elements > themselves (e.g., individual cells). > > What I want to say is that the relation between (a) base biological > processes and (b) biological processes with emergent psychological > properties is akin to the relation between (a’) the base physical elements > of H and O (b’) and the physical water molecule -- H20 – with the > emergent property of liquidity. That is: > > The liquid we call “water” is the EQUIVALENT of H20. There is not H20 > and THEN ALSO something else – some emergent liquid we call “water”. > Liquidity is the emergent property of H20 – a higher-order structture We > don’t have H20 plus something else called “water” or “liquid”. > > States we call consciousness, awareness or qualia are the EQUIVALENT of > complexly organized biological processes. There are not the > complexly-organized biological structures and THEN ALSO some novel “mental” > or “non-biological” something called “consciousness”. We don’t have > biological processes PLUS something else called “mind” or the “mental”. > Psychological processes ARE complex biological processes with emergent > properties (awareness). > > But wait, you might say: The psychological person is an agent – the person > has something akin to “free will” – the capacity to control his or her own > behavior. Physical systems don’t do this. How do we get something like > conscious agency from a physical system? To explain psychological > processes in a material system, don’t we have to explain how we are capable > of conscious control? Don’t our powers of conscious control mean that > somehow “minds” emerge that control “physical” or “biological” bodies? > > The answer is “no” – we do not have to postulate a “mental” entity to > control behavior – because the capacity for hierarchical regulation is > already built into the structure and processes of biological systems. > > I believe that we tend to believe that “mind” is something that is > separate from “body” not not because we can’t imagine how awareness can > emerge from biological processes, but instead because we cannot imagine how > human *agency* – the capacity to consciously control behavior -- > emerges from a physical or biological system. We attribute a capacity for > conscious control (sometimes called “free will”) to “mind”. How else can > “we” be in control? > > But the point is this: We don’t need complex “mental” processes to explain > the capacity for agency. Agency – or at least *hierarchical regulation *is > a basic property of biological systems. Even single celled organisms are > self-regulating systems. The complexity of self-regulation increases as we > move up phylogenetic levels of complexity. At some point, the capacity to > represent one’s environs (and indeed, one’s own processes) comes to > function as part of the biological self-regulating system itself. If this > is true, then we do not need to invoke mysterious conceptions of “I” or > attribute mysterious properties of agency to consciousness to explain human > behavior. Consciousness and other psychological processes serve functions > other than agency in the human system. Consciousness and other > psychological processes transform the already existing capacities for > agency and hierarchical control that already exist in biological systems. > Consciousness likely serves the function of coordinating or integrating > information from endogenous and exogenous sources so that the organism can > respond to increasingly complex systems of adaptive challenges. > > And so, the assertion that psychological processes ARE complexly-organized > biological processes is not a reductionistic statement (although it can be, > in some formulations). Glucose metabolism is a biological process but not > a psychological process (although it can arguably be *influenced* by > psychological processes). Consciousness is both a biological *and* a > psychological process; it is a biological process with emergent properties > that function in the service of the already adaptive self-organizing > organismic system as a whole. > All My Best, > > *Michael F. Mascolo, Ph.D.* > Academic Director, Compass Program > Professor, Department of Psychology > Merrimack College, North Andover, MA 01845 > 978.837.3503 (office) > 978.979.8745 (cell) > > Bridging Political Divides Website: Creating Common Ground > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.creatingcommonground.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=BiXTct126rn5ZsNOJ2THyGg7QkeTiFNc3sNcxpioSYs&s=dnaikad71T93VCsHiaWfPRCcRhnRziPJtxl4YvZAMxo&e=> > Blog: Values Matter > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_values-2Dmatter&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=BiXTct126rn5ZsNOJ2THyGg7QkeTiFNc3sNcxpioSYs&s=ig-BUTBtjh39H7resrXu6Tu-qsaO7_rLhP7-Bl3vMZQ&e=> > Journal: Pedagogy and the Human Sciences > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__scholarworks.merrimack.edu_phs_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=BiXTct126rn5ZsNOJ2THyGg7QkeTiFNc3sNcxpioSYs&s=FzppyMwN986Lq13axaveLOYQ2M6IBG96yT0skmPQ_M0&e=> > Author and Coaching Website: www.michaelmascolo.com > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.michaelmascolo.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=BiXTct126rn5ZsNOJ2THyGg7QkeTiFNc3sNcxpioSYs&s=gcLC-6dvIK_0kUcEAhcLfpV6J3kqE1aJGeWoOxj74SA&e=> > Academia Home Page > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__merrimack.academia.edu_MichaelMascolo&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=BiXTct126rn5ZsNOJ2THyGg7QkeTiFNc3sNcxpioSYs&s=FJ8UplzkVL7xXFlWe_3bGVMwGcFGNSLXltxzbm1PRRE&e=> > Constructivist Meetup Series > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.constructivistmeetup.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=BiXTct126rn5ZsNOJ2THyGg7QkeTiFNc3sNcxpioSYs&s=3dJgNYXjbaZ5CTnG-CjJJEm3ToN-Cf-23W6W-4IZWXQ&e=> > > Things move, persons act. -- Kenneth Burke > If it's not worth doing, it's not worth doing well. -- Donald Hebb > > ############################ > > 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 > > > > > > On Aug 31, 2021, at 4:18 PM, ryanrc111 <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > *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. > ------------------------------ > Dr. Mascolo, > > That is a reductionist reasoning that i cannot agree with. > > When systems are qualitatively different, they deserve qualitative labels > that are different. > "everything is just ____________" never has worked in the history of > science, and I don't think it will start working now. > Biological systems are not merely just physical. Social systems are not > merely just biological. > They do have different features, different epistemic concerns, and indeed > differing levels of action. > The universe is digital -quantum particles do not continuously effect > large scale systems. > There are clear breaks at different scales, where hardly any activity on > scale 1 affects systems on scale 2. > the math of differential equations and complexity supports a digital world > of level-based actions and level-based systems. > > You might be interested to read the work of Sandra Mitchell , a top > philosopher of science, whom I took coursework from at U Pittsburgh. " > IN fact, Sandra is the department chair of the #1 rated philosophy of > science dept. in the world, and I learned from her there! > She has presented full theories about the qualitative difference between > the "sciences". and they are close to Henriques. > > Sandra Mitchell - Wikipedia > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Sandra-5FMitchell&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=a4GpWt5qlsEqQs-EqHtfR3r3f3Htlu2QNX7L0XB9WSA&s=S4VqQYAPqYN8zdUcJWtT-iY3bYuy__DjE1-CRUeealQ&e=> > > There is no possibility of reducing social to biological , and so forth. > Just because there are causal linkages through the material world, does > not mean these systems are qualitatively identical in character. > Emergence is very well established, but I do realize there are people who > hate it as a concept. > However, Its far easier to defend the qualitative thesis because it > doesn't require a magic bullet theory. > I have yet see a magic bullet theory that accurately reduces one "science" > to another. They have all failed. > thus, knowledge still stands as qualitatively different for different > systems. > > Thanks > > Robert Conan Ryan > > > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 4:03 PM Michael Mascolo <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > >> *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. >> ------------------------------ >> Greetings All: >> >> Thanks for pointing us to this article Gregg. >> >> I must admit, I agree deeply with Gough’s thesis in this paper. I think >> that terms like “mind” and “mental” should be discarded — except >> metaphorical terms to use in everyday discourse. >> >> Like any term, the meanings of “mind” and “mental” gain their meaning >> dialectical through a contrast to what they are *not*. Different >> meanings of a term can be illuminated by understanding the different ways >> in which they can be contrasted with what they are not. >> >> A central meaning of the terms “mind” and “mental” arise from their >> contrast with terms like “physical”, “bodily” and “corporeal”. This >> contrast identifies “mind” and “mental” in contradistinction to that which >> is material. It is this meaning that is problematic. The moment we >> suggest that “mind” and “mentality” are in some way “not physical”, we >> become deeply entrenched in the intractable mind-body problem: How can >> something non-physical “cause” changes in something “physical”, and so >> forth. This problem is intractable. >> >> In my view, terms like consciousness, experience, meaning, >> representation, awareness all refer to psychological processes. The >> difference is that these terms do not carry any necessary connotations of >> non-corporality. This is why, in my view, it is preferable to use these >> terms rather than “mind” or “mental”. >> >> From this point of view, psychological processes ARE physical and >> material processes — biological processes that function at a higher (yes >> higher) level or organization. There is no mind/body problem because what >> people call mind — consciousness, experience, agency — is not >> non-physical. Thus, it makes sense to ask, How does consciousness emerge >> in a bio-physical system — where consciousness is NOT assumed to be >> non-physical. In contrast, the question, How does “the mind” emerge from >> bio-physical systems suggests that there is something called “mind” that is >> “nonphysical”. >> >> My Best, >> >> M. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *Michael F. Mascolo, Ph.D.* >> Academic Director, Compass Program >> Professor, Department of Psychology >> Merrimack College, North Andover, MA 01845 >> 978.837.3503 (office) >> 978.979.8745 (cell) >> >> Bridging Political Divides Website: Creating Common Ground >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.creatingcommonground.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=yR78h67WTt--sRzIZIN2948JxfpkaVqtp2CKS4l3p6g&s=wbQHy-km9ZamhneRh-j419humCnbwn3N8TNk9Sf1W0s&e=> >> Blog: Values Matter >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_values-2Dmatter&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=yR78h67WTt--sRzIZIN2948JxfpkaVqtp2CKS4l3p6g&s=Rxk4SxQTODZW19gdIp9UwwsXxrwYmXBnNLVOA_MsFlQ&e=> >> Journal: Pedagogy and the Human Sciences >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__scholarworks.merrimack.edu_phs_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=yR78h67WTt--sRzIZIN2948JxfpkaVqtp2CKS4l3p6g&s=TZ6zu3gYBpGnc-qth35P0K2ja09V8ek0yZeb7b9RJX4&e=> >> Author and Coaching Website: www.michaelmascolo.com >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.michaelmascolo.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=yR78h67WTt--sRzIZIN2948JxfpkaVqtp2CKS4l3p6g&s=RL_7xz7ooeAUoUwKBhSOce0-I_E53OAudK0rqrgCLxQ&e=> >> Academia Home Page >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__merrimack.academia.edu_MichaelMascolo&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=yR78h67WTt--sRzIZIN2948JxfpkaVqtp2CKS4l3p6g&s=56YJNHQVrlG5_KhposaD-iRF6ryS8sc2fdU_9plf7lc&e=> >> Constructivist Meetup Series >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.constructivistmeetup.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=yR78h67WTt--sRzIZIN2948JxfpkaVqtp2CKS4l3p6g&s=DOR19Cpta4Old-RNx6bEYIXm4AV594j23SqBnPOLr4Y&e=> >> >> Things move, persons act. -- Kenneth Burke >> If it's not worth doing, it's not worth doing well. -- Donald Hebb >> >> On Aug 31, 2021, at 1:55 PM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx < >> [log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> Hi List, >> >> Although we hardly need more evidence for the Enlightenment Gap’s claim >> that there is profound confusion regarding the relationship between matter >> and mind in modern systems of understanding, here is yet another article >> that makes the point, with the assertion that we should discard the >> concepts of mental and the mind all together: >> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__aeon.co_essays_why-2Dtheres-2Dno-2Dsuch-2Dthing-2Das-2Dthe-2Dmind-2Dand-2Dnothing-2Dis-2Dmental&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=Vo68_zOBaNQrDJjhliYComTB8eAqDVyDbw6phBB5Nqw&s=EiJjFp0q9ewfFmzAZ64V9agHPpUuN2JQVlOUhUmiQQ0&e= >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__aeon.co_essays_why-2Dtheres-2Dno-2Dsuch-2Dthing-2Das-2Dthe-2Dmind-2Dand-2Dnothing-2Dis-2Dmental&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=yR78h67WTt--sRzIZIN2948JxfpkaVqtp2CKS4l3p6g&s=Dfn6DlF75Im2bhzy3L3-GEbx5Z5o-fxg-rve0zrNRF0&e=> >> >> Since there are several new people on the UTOK list, I will take this >> opportunity state what many here already know, which is that the central >> feature of UTOK is that it affords us a new, different and much richer >> metaphysical vocabulary for the domain of the mental. Indeed, my current >> book is on how the UTOK solves the problem of psychology by affording us >> clarity about the ontology of the mental. (summarized here >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__medium.com_unified-2Dtheory-2Dof-2Dknowledge_a-2Dnew-2Dapproach-2Dto-2Dthe-2Dscience-2Dof-2Dpsychology-2D66f2042e8c32&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=yR78h67WTt--sRzIZIN2948JxfpkaVqtp2CKS4l3p6g&s=RHhx_9mTU72UuJ8sUvEHUjOQsb-X_FZj-E_bUj5mNy4&e=> >> ). >> >> Because I want practice streamlining this, here is the basic summary: >> First, via the ToK System’s divisions of complexification, it gives us the >> category capital “M” Mind, which is a tier of complex adaptive behaviors in >> nature. Specifically, it is the adaptive behaviors exhibited by complex >> animals with brains that produce a functional effect on the >> animal-environment relationship. These are the set of mental behaviors. >> >> Second, via the Map of Mind, we divide these mental behaviors first into >> the neurocognitive processes within the nervous system (Mind1a) that can be >> tracked by things like fMRIs, and the overt activities of animals that can >> be observed (Mind1b). >> >> Mind2 is used to denote the interior epistemological space that is >> subjective conscious experience that can only be accessed from the inside >> and cannot be accessed directly from the outside. This divide is called the >> epistemological gap. No camera or any other device we can consider allows >> us to directly experience the Mind2 of another. The most interesting >> possible exception to this I have seen is the Logan Twins who are conjoined >> at the head, and share some brain domains. Even here, however, they >> experience the world via their own epistemological portal and the way they >> describe sharing thoughts is akin to talking. >> >> Speaking of talking, this is the domain of Mind3. Talking flows through >> the interior and exterior without losing its form. It is a shared >> intersubjective space. Mind3a is when it is private speech, Mind3b is when >> it is translated across the barrier of the skin in some other medium. >> >> Finally, regarding UTOK’s solution to this world knot, it should also be >> noted that science is anchored into the language game of behavior and the >> exterior epistemological position. The ToK represents a behavioral systemic >> map of nature. Our subjective idiographic point of view is different. It is >> represented by the iQuad Coin. >> >> Thus, my reply to the article is to agree that it makes an important >> point, but it is laughable that (a) we can just stop using the terms and >> (b) that words like cognitive, psychiatric and psychological are fine even >> though mind and mental are hopeless. What is needed is a proper descriptive >> metaphysical system that is in accordance with natural science ontology >> that affords us clarity about the various domains of the mental and the >> ways they emerged and interface. >> >> This essay is mental in the sense that it is an example of Mind3b >> behavior that operates at the Cultural Person plane of existence, and >> functions to network propositions together to legitimize a version of is >> and ought. >> >> 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=Vo68_zOBaNQrDJjhliYComTB8eAqDVyDbw6phBB5Nqw&s=_AaNOnmXQTg4fYbrkTKj2sCtSyiWJ-UxuVgU4WUkEdE&e= >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=yR78h67WTt--sRzIZIN2948JxfpkaVqtp2CKS4l3p6g&s=y1OHXcYoLS1rcGRNFEhrIOqM1t09lXA69XKC98X5Ms8&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 >> > ############################ > > 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