Hi Gregg,

Thank you for the clarifications, and I see that I was previously
confusing *mind
3* as simply the domain of exterior epistemology whereas I see now the 2020
diagram of *map of mind 1 2 3 *allows for a clearer distinction between
verbal and non-verbal overt mental behavior (Indeed, an improvement from my
humble view!)
[image: image.png]


-Chance


On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 5:52 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi Chance,
>
>
>
>   Thanks for this note. I too hear the chatter.
>
>
>
>   Re the question about Mind 2…yes, although it should be noted that the
> private narrator is Mind3a (here is the Map of Mind blog
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_202010_the-2Dmap-2Dmind-2D1-2D2-2D3&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=FXQRAQuSvcy4IeoyQj27aqIeqOquw8DDGacWn9cKiH0&s=8X2zDdKjl24Si7Gngm2SD_agQ-r--cYpsK9kT2JZzr0&e= >).
> It is Mind3 because it is mediated by language and can be shared publicly
> via speech or writing without losing its form (Mind3b, or “verbal
> behavior”). But, yes, Mind2 is where the (nonverbal) images of simulated
> thought reside. Indeed, in my work with John Vervaeke, we are outlining a
> clearer picture of Mind2, starting at what we call “the base of sentience”
> and moving up the phylogenetic scale. Here is a blog I did on the five
> steps to human consciousness that lays this out
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_202102_human-2Dconsciousness-2Din-2Dfive-2Dbasic-2Dsteps&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=FXQRAQuSvcy4IeoyQj27aqIeqOquw8DDGacWn9cKiH0&s=kOl30y_gssQPCzMJBg5LuD8ymzpoeAM_vwxXJ70kWS8&e= >.
>
>
>
>
> Take care, friend.
>
> G
>
>
>
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Chance McDermott
> *Sent:* Sunday, April 11, 2021 11:13 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: TOK: Clip from my talk with John
>
>
>
> *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.
> ------------------------------
>
> Thank you for the summary, Gregg, I enjoyed reading it and did experience
> it as succinct and comprehensive with novel additions, such as the Z axis
> and the descriptions of the quantum Z axis energy-information implicate
> order.  It seems like the story is being told in a more accessible way
> without the need for  knowledge of the nuances in psychological theories
> and clinical psychology's histories and systems.
>
>
>
> Seeing the forms "as they are" is also a good description of the awareness
> one may acquire after integrating the TOK system.  I can't tell if it's me
> or what, but the psychic chatter coming from people unaware of the
> subjectivity of justification systems is squalling with intensity.
>
>
>
> QUESTION:  If we zoom into Mind 2 do we still make the distinctions
> between private narrator and the images of simulated thought outlined in
> the original architecture of mind diagrams?
>
>
>
> Big brotherly love,
>
>
>
> -Chance
>
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 9:18 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Many thanks, friend. I am glad you like it. I found your description
> enriching.
>
>
>
> I am definitely keen on the idea that I fell into the problem of
> psychology precisely because there was a massive hole in our naturalistic
> thinking, which can be specified by the Enlightenment Gap. It is obvious
> that the Enlightenment failed to give us a coherent naturalistic scientific
> philosophy that was aligned with human subjectivity and purpose (i.e., the
> human self, soul, spirit). That was because they had the wrong ontological
> picture. The right ontological picture is pretty clear to me these days.
> Let me lay it out for you. I know, Chance, you know much of this already.
> But what follows is a slightly new, simplified version that you might find
> worth reading through.
>
>
>
> First, there is an “Energy-Information Implicate Order” that Matter
> emerges out of. It does not have the same kind of space-time causal
> properties as macroscopic matter. Let’s call this “Z”. At the Big
> Beginning/Big Bang, we see that Energy-Information Singularity transforms
> and differentiates and this is the beginning of the classic material world.
> Here
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_watch-3Fv-3Dqq3YDfui-2DtI&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=q2yduuD_I3MOR3nBfmY_n0kH7jStx2KIochyKFEWOPw&s=ZkGfSKDPfr9dlyHSegtnpIFWn80tTzpirRnRkYtS7P0&e=>
> is a nice easy to follow 15 minute video on the first three minutes. This
> change reaction gives rise to the first dimension of complexification on
> the ToK, represented as “Matter”.
>
>
>
> We can call Matter “dimension A”. The macroscopic “explicate order” arises
> out of the Energy-Information implicate order. How this happens can be
> framed as the “reality-measurement-emergent” questions/problems that makes
> interpreting quantum mechanics so difficult. The intersection of the
> Energy-Information and the Matter dimension is nevertheless clearly framed
> by quantum mechanics and general relativity. The foundation is quantum
> relativistic field theory, which shows that we can think of material
> particles and forces as emerging out of fluctuations in the
> Energy-Information field. The cohering of particles and forces give rise to
> macroscopic objects with entangled histories. This is the atomic universe
> and above at the macroscopic scale. The emergent phenomena include things
> like atoms and chemical molecules, and stars and galaxies and, of course,
> space and time as we experience them (in contrast to their “shape” at the
> implicate order). So now we have *Z* + A. The physical sciences map *Z* +
> *A*.
>
>
>
> We then get Life. Life is a fundamentally different kind of emergence
> because it involves the “epistemic” process of knowing. By knowing I mean
> that cells process information and communicate in networks to generate a
> novel complex adaptive plane. The biological forms and processes represent
> a different kind of causal process. That is why there is a shape-break on
> the ToK. The new Life cone is the new living epistemic process involves the
> way living things “know” about the external reality. We can call Life
> “dimension B”. So now we have *Z* + A + *B*, with B mapped by biological
> sciences
>
>
>
> We then, of course, have Mind, which we can call “dimension C”. Once
> again, we have a fundamentally different kind of “epistemic” process. This
> time, via animal sensory-movement relations that give rise to the animal
> behavioral dimension of activity, which the ToK innovatively characterizes
> as “Mind”. Way too much conceptual grammar is devoted to “the mind” and way
> to little is devoted to seeing Mind in nature. As someone who is deeply
> knowledgeable about ethology, I know you get this. But I am just spelling
> it out. Of course, this evolutionary model allows us to clearly frame
> neurocognition into subjective conscious experience in animals. Behavioral
> Investment Theory gives the metatheory. The Map of Mind1,2,3 gives the
> metaphysics, framing Mind1 as neurocognition and Mind2 as subjective
> conscious experience. Now we have* Z* + A +* B* + *C*. C should have been
> mapped by the basic psychological sciences, but the problem of psychology
> emerged because the Enlightenment gave us the wrong grammar to talk about
> “the mind”.
>
>
>
> Finally, we get the talking mind of human persons, Mind3 and the Culture
> that Mind3 produces. The Culture-Person plane is “dimension D”. The network
> of evolving systems of justification that function to coordinate people in
> socio-ecological arrangements through time. It is the clear way the ToK
> carves nature at the *B* to *C* and then *C* to *D* “joint points” that
> it affords us a new and proper way to think about the animal-mind,
> culture-person relationship. So now we have *Z* + *A* + *B* + *C* + *D*.
>
>
>
> Then we get the evolution of analytic justification into transcendent
> knowing. This is the process of: (1) knowing about knowledge; (2)knowing
> about reality and (3) knowing about the knower. Knowing about knowledge in
> the West starts with the Greek and the Pythagoreans into Socrates into
> Plato and Aristotle. They give us the birth of philosophical reflections
> that attempt to climb out of the socially constructed “cave” and see the
> forms of the world as they are. Then we get knowing about reality via
> modern empirical natural science, which gives us the correspondent approach
> grounded in math and method.
>
>
>
> Then we get knowing about the knower via UTOK. Let’s call this *X*.
>
>
>
> So now we have *Z* + *A* + *B* + *C* + *D* + *X*.
>
>
>
> We can depict this on the scale of time by complexification as follows:
>
>
>
> [image: A][image: D][image: X][image: Z][image: B][image: C][image: Time
> since beginning of Matter][image: Z]
>
>
>
>
>
> *Z* = Energy-Information Implicate Order
>
> *A* = Material-Object Explicate Order of Complexity
>
> *B* = Living-Organism Order of Complexification
>
> *C *= Mental-Animal Order of Complexification
>
> *D* = Cultural-Person Order of Complexification
>
> *X* = Metaphysical Scientific Knower that Observes/Describes/Explains
> Behavior Change
>
>
>
> Contextualized in the Tree and the Garden, the iQuad formulation is about
> developing a logos approach to nonduality, such that it represents the case
> where observer equals observed. Thus, it is the special case where
>
> the onto-epistemology of ontic-epistemic relations of observer/observed
> nonduality can be represented as *X* = *Z* + *A* + *B* + *C* + *D. *
>
>
>
> This could be called “The Nondual Singularity Theory of Observer (Psyche)
> = Observed (Behavior)” or something like that…
>
> Big love, brother.
> Gregg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Chance McDermott
> *Sent:* Saturday, April 10, 2021 2:33 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: TOK: Clip from my talk with John
>
>
>
> *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.
> ------------------------------
>
> Gregg,
>
>
>
> I resonate with the mission statement:  *"We are seeking a coherent,
> naturalistic ontology that can revitalize the human soul and spirit in the
> 21st century"*
>
>
>
> It appears to me to be dense, precise, and uplifting.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> -Chance
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 10:04 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Hi TOK List,
>
>
>
>   I am working with Christian Gross to set up the “UTOKing with Gregg
> Podcast”. We will be formally announcing it Monday, and the first episode
> will be released on Thursday. Apropos of Voices with Vervaeke (I was John’s
> first guest), John is the first guest. Given the discussions on the list, I
> thought I would share the two minute clip as a preview (thanks to Christian
> for finding and selecting this clip).
>
>
>
> Here it is:
>
>
>
> * UTOKing with John Vervaeke - Clip.mp4
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__drive.google.com_file_d_1kmAvCL4gVWCF75ooXrdMHSl4awuj2Zrw_view-3Fusp-3Ddrive-5Fweb&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=wjF8cZoiFchamTuxBdDEmw&m=AYFX0kB-9msai7Cux39UQ5sMlWA0a5jcO5wReMl34TA&s=AOMThfpnVBKU99d0Djl5uQKCCN80cV3jK1AaDX-LVgs&e=>*
>
>
>
> And this is the quote we are speaking about, which frames the clip and
> much of the discussion:
>
>
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Gregg
>
> ############################
>
> 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
>

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

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