Brandon,

One of the big gaps in perspective is whether a theorist describes the social as the concrete organization of the real world or as the abstract mechanisms underneath what is institutional.

This is a classic example:

The Nobel prize is a real institution that was not organized according to theory but according to the biases of Nobel and the Swedes who administrate the prize.

The real world is like that: it never matches the pure abstractions that some people hope it will.

Similarly speaking : our entire system of academic knowledge is messy. We have arguments routinely over what constitutes an academic field or subfield... or which research questions or models belong to what group of scholars.

However sometimes the abstractions match the concrete institutional structure well. When that happens, the world takes special notice of the harmony.

For example our economic institutions closely match economic theory ( Of course you're gonna always hear some whiny heterodox person claim that this is not the case, usually because the whiny person has a cultish commitment to a radical economy that doesn't exist )...

You will notice that my world systems analysis is not a discussion of oughts but of "is"es...and thus I don't try to predict my own pet ideas as being *the future*. I make predictions that are grounded in the messy concrete truths of real world institutions...

For example some people want to abstract the world system into only 2 variables: information and energy... Certainly those 2 variables are dominant but this is an abstraction that doesn't represent the world as it actually operates. In other words we do not have major institutions on the world level that organize our world based on categories of energy and information. In the real structure: energy and information production (education and higher learning) are both considered to be sectors and they are put alongside other sectors actors such as services, real estate, and transportation....

So sometimes the abstractions that nerds love so much are not corresponding to the real world institutions.

A great theorist explains these gaps rather than assumes this is an error of humanity !!!!!

Thanks Brandon!!!

Robert

On Tue, Oct 5, 2021, 2:29 PM Brandon Norgaard <[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.

You know, I was recently thinking about how the Nobel prizes can be seen to align with the main branches of sciences outlined within TOK, but there is no prize for psychology. That is a shame. I can list the Nobel prizes and assess how they might align with the branches of science and planes of existence within TOK:

Nobel Prize                             Analog within TOK

Physics                                     Physical science / matter plane

Chemistry                                 Physical science / matter plane

Economics                                Social science / culture plane

Physiology or Medicine             Biological science / life plane

Peace                                       Not really science-based, but sort of in the realm of Social science / culture plane

Literature                                  Artistic, not scientific, but sometimes covers psychological reflections in character development

From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx
Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 3:41 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: TOK Nobels in Medicine/Physiology

Hi All,

I encourage folks interested in the nature of the “mind-brain-behavior system” (AKA Mind1, Mind, and the set of mental behaviors as the third plane of existence) to check out this press release describing the Nobel Prizes handed out in Medicine/Physiology described here. Very cool stuff. The fact that this falls under the Nobel category of “Physiology and Medicine” is a good reminder of how the categories and concepts of science that emerged in the Enlightenment resulted in a massively confusing linkage between science and “physicalism”. The “hard” sciences, by which we mean the sciences that have a clear, coherent ontology, “tap out” at psychology because we could effectively frame the ontology of psychology. Thus, we bracket out “the mental” from “the physical” and have the impression that the sciences are revealing the underlying physical reality of our mental worlds. A much better understanding emerges when we realize that we are metaphysically confused.

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