Cool reply Nicholas,

I would suggest reviewing the book The Conscious Brain.
My interpretation is that Attention, Consciousness, and Awareness are
distinct.
(Synonyms exist for a reason)

According to the book, “attention engenders (creates) experience”…and I’m
inclined to reconsider the Ancient Greek idea (reinterpreted) that *experience
is created by attention coming out of the witness, invested to profit
ideas…*

 (they apparently believed that light came *out* of the actual eyeball or
something)…but *the attention is always invested inside the body, *within
the brain, that’s one with all dimensions and possibilities within, (not
merely the 5lb 3D object we hold in mind, but a *moving target).*

A beautifully true idea I got from Dr. Sten Eckberg (a YouTube channel on
theketo diet), is that *the digestive system is outside of the body. *

And the Buddha said* the senses are the world. *

We digest food as soon as it enters the mouth, and ultimately, the physical
plane of existence is food for the soul.

I mean, truly, all we see is (*at least one with*) our digestive system.
I’m inside out, and if we keep thing is their proper context, I can say
that everything outside is in my belly.

The top of the ToK is the one infinite self. Everyone is the one.

Jamie




On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 4:37 PM Nicholas Lattanzio <[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.
> ------------------------------
> This is a fun thread! I'll just throw in my elevator pitch for nonduality.
>
> It is often said in the Zen tradition that the sound of a gong is not the
> sound of a gong, meaning that the actual sound (perception) and the words
> "sound of a gong" (symbol) are clearly very very different things,
> particularly so at an ontological level where they are essentially
> polarized on the ToK (I don't know for sure but I think Gregg would put the
> physical existence of sound somewhere in the Energy or Matter orders of
> complexity whereas language and symbol are in Culture). These things are
> very different, yet they generally mean the same thing (at least
> heuristically) and may only differ in terms of the neurological pathways
> differentially utilized to create that perception.
>
> So if they aren't one thing, and they aren't two separate things (Kantian
> epistemology), and they exist at different levels of ontological
> significance/behavioral complexity such that neither can be reduced or made
> inferior to the other, then what the hell is it??
>
> Nothing. No-thing. Not immaterial, not totally material. What, then,
> transcends the dialectic of mind and matter as distinct entities?
> Awareness. Not the nomenclature awareness most refer to, I mean direct
> experience but bare existence awareness, awareness that need not be
> experienced, similar to what Gregg calls the Unknown Knower or what in ACT
> is called the Observing Self as compared to the Conceptualized Self (the
> latter being a good definition of mind).
>
> Certainly mind exists and it certainly has some relative form of physical
> existence. As Gregg stated, it is also a matter of one's ontological line
> in the sand. Mind is physical? Yeah definitely, but physical is not mind,
> so it is irreducible in that way. But how much does matter actually matter
> if it too is not an ontological root? Is the energy that makes up the atoms
> physical matter? Not by many definitions that relegate matter to being
> "condensed energy," but the reduction problem exists there too. If you say
> one you automatically create the other even if only in
> possibility/potentiality, that is inescapable.
>
> I'll point out here that our experience of this conversation and this
> conversation make a great example for this if you factor in (at least for
> the sake of argument) a non-local awareness mediated by neurological
> activity (meaning that awareness is a different kind of thing ontologically
> than the experience of being aware), allowing for unverifiably varied and
> individualized subjective experiences of the same exact thing.
>
> Regards,
>
> Nicholas G. Lattanzio, Psy.D.
>
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 4:05 PM Jamie D <[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.
>> ------------------------------
>> I can certainly appreciate both the article and Gregg’s response.
>>
>> Part of the reason I’ve been drawn to the TOK is how it bridges our
>> entire academic system…but when it comes to finding reliability
>> communicating with *anyone, *no system has seemed reliable for me….
>> Which tells me the word *systemic, *with regards to social justice,
>> isn’t outside but within…yet both, and far beyond the mere issues of the
>> day.
>>
>> Plato regarded governing one’s soul as like governing a city, ….governing
>> the various justifications or egos that live in us.
>>
>> *In moments o*f thinking to, or reasoning with, oneself, one must have
>> another with whom to think.
>>
>> Yet in sports, flow, and meditation, we can transcend this duality.
>>
>> ….
>>
>> I find it sublime how fitting Richard Feynman’s words were, that when
>> wood burns, it is literally *stored sun *emeging from the wood….
>>
>> I think it’s the same with ego…
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 10:55 AM 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=ywgw17zEPT_wmxQDe66d7zf_0QsYW5reJ9iAO2l6pP8&s=m29gUGWUrWcTt0r17e60__p5G_T8Tsaux8S02E0_Ft4&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=cT8vjCLjfWzIQhdHcf_ts2FMRAdbg86nXWakKiF5Mt0&s=NOSWvnhY1F0nEs-HjL0DNHes4UXCkC6pwU2mmaW4ghk&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=cT8vjCLjfWzIQhdHcf_ts2FMRAdbg86nXWakKiF5Mt0&s=PJjWM-Kbi1xImk4Mc1ji1rk23Y24urbVSchZSx2YCis&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=ywgw17zEPT_wmxQDe66d7zf_0QsYW5reJ9iAO2l6pP8&s=3dLFwb0W2EeJVWQHSnxyeygVOmknJGnuaNTPaI-CY4Y&e= 
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=cT8vjCLjfWzIQhdHcf_ts2FMRAdbg86nXWakKiF5Mt0&s=i2h9k_9QumEMroMJPu99gY019PxyRTPcwqSIjIIoeI8&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
>>>
>> --
>> -Jamie
>> ############################
>>
>> 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
>
-- 
-Jamie

############################

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