Gregg ~

That was a fine bundle of threads, indeed! While pondering your email in
the background over the last few days, I continued an engagement in
collective presencing and sensemaking practices which I have recently
undertaken in a class put together by a group called Authentic Relating
Toronto. At two different points the necessity of distributed cognition and
co-reflection to empower a sort of facilitated diffusion (RRRR) between
Wilbur's Four Quadrants impressed itself strongly upon me. While the class
I was in featured a Wilburian/Vervaekian background, I would also be
interested in such practices turned toward contemplation of UTOK. I have an
inkling that these collective practices now being widely explored will,
through a repeatedly experienced autopoietic "superpresence" termed
Dialogos, help to midwife this Fifth Joint Point you point toward. While
the experience of Dialogos can be joyous and "clear" to me personally, and
the emergent intelligence seems to better apprehend complexity, there is
certainly something there that transcends Culture in the standard sense,
and which could inform virtue in the We Quadrant.

But I digress. What I want to say is, yes, this was helpful in providing
more entry points for me, and thank you very much, and that I think that
there could be collective contemplative practices mirroring solo meditative
ones which could also help one polish the Coin and find the Eidos in the
haystack.

With glad heart,
Rachel



On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 5:27 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi Rachel,
>
>
>
>   Thanks so much for this. I really appreciate both how much you “get” and
> the clarity of your requests. I will provide three “entry points” here, one
> on the basic structure of the iQuad Coin, one drawing on Wilber’s
> epistemological quadrants that allows us to relate the psyche (Coin view)
> to the world (ToK view), and a final thought about what it means for us
> living in the world and the need to actively “be the change” that can
> transform the Culture.
>
>
>
> Let’s start with the basic structure of the Coin. So it starts with first
> person perspectival empiricism. This is the idea that you are simply
> “thrown into the world” and that you are faced with awareness. That is,
> your witness function simply “presences” you into the world. Faced with
> this, you then need to bring some (metaphysical) concepts to bear to ground
> your perspectival knowing via propositions. A very basic distinction is
> that you are a “knower” that “knows” about things in the world. We can
> label this knowing an “epistemic process” and your witness function being
> an epistemic portal into the world. The next step is to then bring in
> ontology (and the ontic). This refers to the relationship between what you
> know and the world. In very basic terms, we can say that when what you know
> is true, it corresponds to the real. And when it does not, when it is
> simply ideas that have no correspondence, then that is imaginary. So, in
> very common sense terms, you can look out at the world and see real chairs,
> cups, floors, birds and rocks. These are real things and have an existence
> independent of you as a knower (I am just using common sense here; there
> are some sophisticated philosophical points to be made and issues
> pertaining to the relationship between epistemology/epistemics and
> ontology/ontics and the deep nature of the real, but let’s punt on these
> issues for now). And you can think about florescent pink elephants or
> flying spaghetti monsters, and know that they are fully imaginary. You can
> also think about stuff that seems to be kind of “in between” fully real and
> fully imaginary. Think of something like justice or beauty. These things do
> not seem to exist fully in the world independent of knowers. Nor do they
> seem to be fully imaginary. For now, I invite us to call this the “complex
> imaginal” world.
>
>
>
> By taking these steps, you are engaging in the basics of the Human
> Identity Function. That is, you are starting with your first person
> empirical awareness of being and then you are starting to bring concepts
> and categories to that experience, which we can call
> metaphysical-propositional knowing. This links you up to the basics of
> philosophy (i.e., metaphysics is your concepts and categories, epistemology
> is how you know, ontology is what you think is real, and empirical is
> observation/data/experience). Now we bridge that in a very simple way to
> the complex unit circle, which simply places the concepts of the “real” and
> the “imaginary” as orthogonal. And that gives rise to a “complex” plane,
> that is a combination. So there is one basic entry point. Notice that with
> it, we have yoked the psyche (unique, particular experiencing subject) with
> both mathematics (at least the idea of real and imaginary numbers) and
> philosophy (i.e., metaphysics, epistemology, ontology, empiricism). This is
> called “rotating the Coin,” which means you are starting as a Human
> empirical knower and developing Identities and metaphysical-conceptual
> relations.
>
>
>
> Now, lets go a different direction. As I know you are aware, Ken Wilber’s
> Integral theory has two very powerful lines of thought. One is the
> developmental line, especially of consciousness. In its most basic form, it
> is the idea that we can trace things from simple to increasingly complex,
> and in human consciousness we can go from animal to child to adult to sage.
> In addition to the idea that there are lines of development, there are also
> “epistemological quadrants” that focus on the perspective one takes in the
> world. More specifically, Wilber gives us an interior by exterior,
> individual by collective 2 x 2 that affords us clarity on the difference
> between a subjective, intersubjective, and objective perspective on the
> world (it and its). Now, let’s use this to put the Coin and Tree in proper
> relation. We can consider the box below representing Wilber’s quadrants.
> The Upper Left is the individual interior view which is captured by the
> Coin. The Lower Right, the exterior systems, scientific holistic view of
> the world, captured by the ToK System. I have included John’s 3 Rs to
> suggest that there should be an iterative, transjective relation.
>
>
>
> Now, we can say that, given the knowledge systems that emerged out of the
> Enlightenment, there were no systems of knowing (i.e., no big picture
> coherent metaphysical systems that described what we know) that could put
> together the scientific view of nature with the specific individual psyche.
> UTOK says we can now do that. First, we can start with the idea that both
> the Coin and the Tree can be framed as “webs of energy information fields”.
> So that affords us a “monist” naturalistic ontology, which is good,
> because, at least as far as metaphysical coherence goes, a dual world
> substance ontology seems unworkable.
>
>
>
> Then we can look around and see folks like Bruce and Layman or Rich
> Blundell or many, many others who argue for a deep correspondence between
> the psyche and the cosmos. UTOK then invites us to do this via an inside
> out and outside in view, and suggests that Energy, Matter, Life, Mind and
> Culture are, if framed properly, transjective categories for both science
> and the psyche. The ToK System makes this clear for science, especially
> when we add the Periodic Table of Behavior. For our psyche, we can start by
> “zooming out, back and down” to see our conscious field. When we do, it
> seems most of us can move from our egoic-person justifying self to our
> relational primate to our experiencing mammal to our feeling animal to our
> living bodies. If so, we can align the complexification stack, inside and
> out.
>
>
>
> Finally, we then shift into the current world and look out at the meaning
> and mental health crises and the current state of knowledge as being a
> chaotic, fragmented pluralism. When we do that AND we connect it to the
> above, something powerful should ensue. Namely, it should dawn on people
> that we are philosophically lost and that is a major problem for humanity
> and we don’t have much time to make the necessary (iQuad) corrections. That
> is, the deep normative conclusion must be that we need to align ourselves
> with a wisdom ethic and help be part of the solution that moves the world
> toward a true, coherent, integrated pluralism that is grounded in knowledge
> and oriented toward wisdom. (This is called “flipping the coin, because it
> shifts from knowing to valuing). To use John’s terminology, all this means
> we need to steal the Culture (the lower left collective). So, here I can
> place JUST and the Garden and Brendan’s mythopoetic epic for a metamodern
> spirituality. I could also have included work like Layman and Bruce’s on
> post-metaphysical spirituality  and Zak Stein’s time between worlds, etc.
>
>
>
> The bottom line is that, as the neo-Platonists tell us, it is a good thing
> to be placed in right relation to is and ought.
>
>
>
> The act of rotating and flipping the Coin affords us one path to achieve
> that.
>
>
>
> Best,
> Gregg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> One thing I can say that I have found helpful is to
>
>
>
> *From:* theory of knowledge society discussion <
> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Rachel Hayden
> *Sent:* Monday, March 28, 2022 5:04 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: TOK Science and Psyche
>
>
>
> *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.
> ------------------------------
>
> (I should also have mentioned that I see how science can be viewed within
> Justification Systems Theory and the ToK, in relation to the Person/Culture
> Plane, wherein science evolves as a specific form of justification. This
> provides an explicit connection from empirical natural science at the
> Cultural level to subjective qualitative experience at the Mental level.)
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 12:09 PM Rachel Hayden <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Hello Gregg ~
>
>
>
> You're probably hoping for comments from the more educated among us.
> However, you have appreciated my street-level view in the past so here's a
> couple cents:
>
>
>
> I can understand how the ToK makes a nice "closed loop" which returns the
> justifying Person back into a cosmic ontology. I can also understand how
> this interacts with the Mental level to help produce a Self (per The
> Elusive I series), and how consciousness plays a role in this (per
> Untangling the Worldknot of Consciousness). I understand the role Relevance
> Realization plays here. To me, this all fit together so nicely that it
> rapidly became a situation of Belief Change Bias for me, where I couldn't
> understand how this wouldn't be obvious to others.
>
> I can also understand the Coin as a placeholder, and its singular
> importance as a portal/talisman for entering into the UTOK world and
> reflecting on our transjective being.
>
> I think what would be helpful for people like me, less educated and/or
> quick than some, is adding more stitches into the whole tapestry,
> connecting the Coin and the ToK more firmly. Everything connects, but
> there's an internal sense in me that I could use a variety of entry points,
> so to speak, to really understand the terrain better. Examples, connections
> with other theories, etc. Like doing different math problems with the same
> formula until it not only makes sense, but I can make sense with it.
>
> Hope that's useful!
>
> Warmly,
>
> Rachel
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 8:39 AM michael kazanjian <
> [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.
> ------------------------------
>
> Thanks Gregg:
>
>
>
> This is a good start.  Just a caveat. Phenomenology and intentionality in
> philosophy, strongly note/caution that the subjective is always inherently
> there, coloring the objective. Pure objectivity might be impossible.  Neils
> Bohr says we are actors (subjective)  and spectators (objective).  Ricoeur
> says we always need to reintroduce the objective into the subjective.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Michael M. Kazanjian
>
>
>
> On Monday, March 28, 2022, 08:31:06 AM CDT, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Folks,
>
>
>
> I want to explicitly propose something that I have alluded at several
> times, but I want to make explicit here and see what people think.
>
>
>
> The proposal is this: Modern empirical natural science works as a language
> system by factoring out the subjective qualitative experience of being.
> That is, it seeks objective knowledge that is defined as being true
> independent of what any particular person believes or experiences. In
> contrast, we can frame the psyche as referring to what particular people
> qualitatively experience and believe.
>
>
>
> At the metaphysical conceptual level, these concepts are essentially oil
> and water. And they lead to the great “subjective versus objective” divide.
> Of course, as Mike Mascolo, John Vervaeke and many others for a long time
> have postulated, there are other epistemological vantage points. For
> example, there is social constructionism, relationalism, and transjectivism
> to name a few epistemological frames that potentially avoid or transition
> around the subjective versus objective split. Moreover, there are many
> philosophies prior to modern science that also do not commit strongly to
> the subjective versus objective epistemological divide, such as Aristotle’s.
>
>
>
> But, it nevertheless is the case that modern empirical natural science
> opened up this problem—deeply—because it generated an (intersubjectively
> verifiable) objectivist system of knowing. And the problem has been that it
> has been essentially impossible to coherent place the specific, real,
> qualitative knower back into the equation, while maintaining a consistent,
> coherent epistemological, ontological system.
>
>
>
> And so, I would like to propose that this is exactly what UTOK does. It
> explicitly and consiliently mends the science versus psyche split that
> modern science opened up. And it does so within a descriptive metaphysical
> system that is anchored to both a clear picture of natural science (given
> by the ToK System) and a clear “place holder” for the psyche, given by the
> iQuad Coin. Here are some vision logic depictions:
>
>
>
>
>
> But is UTOK the only possible solution? Of course not. HOWEVER, with its
> explicit analysis of (a) the Enlightenment Gap; (b) the problem of
> psychology and (c) the problem of psychotherapy, UTOK does throw down a
> gauntlet of sorts and asks: *What other system does the bridging by
> explicitly addressing these problems? And if the answer is the do not, then
> can we really say they work to address the problem (as opposed to side
> stepping it)?* In terms of the logos argument for UTOK, I think this is a
> pretty good summary of why it is a special and different kind of
> metaphysical – empirical unified theory that arguably surpasses Wilber’s
> integral and Bhaskar’s critical realism and others that I am aware of, at
> least in terms of the depth and clarity of the logos/metaphysics/scientific
> onto-epistemology (of course, those systems offer things UTOK is much less
> developed in).
>
>
>
> The reason is that it fully solves the science versus psyche problem.
>
>
>
> I welcome thoughts, per usual.
> G
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________
>
> Gregg Henriques, Ph.D.
> President of the Society for the Exploration of Psychotherapy Integration
> (2022)
>
> 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=mPxsNhKq3xu4l-E1j1pr5uq9z13kRuyLf7Wl1vObmqs&s=JsYvZh540Cd4PMiId7WhDFVZbmLqlErR3FYdwr_n88M&e= 
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=XPG0NymNmVDyXOI4wAG_7ImIekNuxpz4FSi16ftVIPY&s=k-GIeYl86Q2YB5QSQND_Msz8MQrYGQEP-oVuLWKqAm4&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