Hi Gregg, I appreciate your point, and I think that it's the same reason
the Damasio took me to task when I met with him last Friday about my use of
the term Consciousness too. You are both clinicians, and to think of
Consciousness as 'one size fits all' is anathema to the way you have to
categorize mental health....BUT what I am addressing when I use the term
Consciousness is like the difference between Truth and Law, the latter
being a derivative of the former. I don't know if this will help, but I
have further refined my way of thinking about Consciousness. I now think
that Consciousness is the 'blueprint' of the Cosmos, animate and inanimate
alike because homeostasis undergirds all of matter as the 'equal and
opposite reaction' to the Big Bang....*without homeostasis there would be
no matter*, *only energy* (and btw this is concordant with Alfred North
Whitehead's 'Process Philosophy' in that he too thought that the primary
state of being is energy, and that matter is merely a transient state). And
the way in which our physiology has evolved, endogenizing the environment
and compartmentalizing it is the way we perceive that Consciousness
'blueprint' within us, but that's just our idiosyncratic way of actualizing
the Cosmologic for survival as a result of evolving warm-bloodedness (and
being bipedal, etc). Otherwise Consciousness is pervasive throughout the
material world as homeostasis.

Put another way, Consciousness and consciousness are one and the same in
the Implicate Order.

So I don't distinguish non-conscious from conscious in the sense of
Consciousness because non-Consciousness is non-existent.  What you are
referring to is the physiologic mechanism that prevails in REM sleep or
coma, for example. IMHO, this difference between Consicousness and
consciousness is important in deliberating about your TOK because it
addresses the ontology and epistemology of what life constitutes. In terms
of consciousness, the origins and means of knowing are not consistent,
whereas they are in terms of Consciousness.  I hope that made sense because
you have touched on an important distinction between Consciousness and
consciousness, not to be semantic or argumentative, but to be clear. jst

On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 9:49 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Great discussion.
>
>
>
> John, as a psychologist, I need a language game that differentiates
> conscious from nonconscious activity. I am curious, how do you
> conceptualize the “unconscious” or nonconscious or subconscious? For a
> psychologist such as myself who uses consciousness to refer to subjective
> experience of being in the world, which, say flickers off each night when I
> sleep, I need to have words that refer to that activity beneath
> subjective/perceptual awareness. (Note, this is *not *self-conscious
> awareness, which is the “knowing that I know” thing).
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Gregg
>
>
>
> PS I refer to what you call consciousness in organisms as “physiological
> functional awareness and responsiveness”. That is the kind of awareness I
> see in cells and plants.
>
>
>
> PPS. Here is my blog on the meaning and problem of consciousness
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_201812_10-2Dproblems-2Dconsciousness&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=8eFl7R5jcqdh9GkvxqOVPMwgqGf8KGEIPw307jJf71k&s=oRuW40yCYWYZtjmkZVyfGVDUATGYZwsQumurS6UnRkk&e=>
> in case that helps sort out the language game issues we might be having
> here.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *JOHN TORDAY
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 22, 2019 9:43 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: + True Good Beautiful Self-States
>
>
>
> Hi Joe et al, thank you for the feed-back. I know that the language
> unfortunately tends to get in the way when we talk across disciplines. My
> hope is that we can overarch the semantic problem, and your response is
> indicative of that. Having said that, the one key idea that I would like to
> get across is that all 'material' existence is the product of the 'equal
> and opposite reaction' to the Big Bang due to Newton's Third Law of Motion.
> Without that, there would be no matter in the Cosmos, only energy (So for
> example, Alfred North Whitehead theorized that the predominant 'process' is
> energetic interactions, and that the material state is merely a transient
> state of being). That 'equal and opposite reaction' is the origin of
> homeostasis for both the biologic and non-biologic realms. In physics,
> homeostasis is what produces balanced chemical reactions that form the
> rocks and dirt that we live on. So all of the material Cosmos originates
> from the same fundamental process. The core difference is that chemical
> homeostasis leads to stasis or stability, whereas biologic homeostasis
> allows for an on-going interactive 'dialogue' with the Cosmos, forming and
> reforming in order to cope with the ever-changing environment through
> direct epigenetic inheritance from the environment, or what we refer to as
> Evolution. And to be clear, I think that it is the combination of evolution
> as the endogenization of the external environment (see Lynn Margulis's
> 'Endosymbiosis Theory') that forms our internal physiologic 'knowledge' of
> the Cosmos/Natural Laws by compartmentalizing it and making it useful for
> survival and perpetuation of the species. When that construct is combined
> with our active dialogue with the environment, it generates what we think
> of anthropomorphically as Consciousness. But to reiterate, all matter has
> that Cosmic blueprint baked in to it, we just happen to take that blueprint
> and animate it (like Chalmer's "hard problem", or the concept of
> disembodied consciousness expressed by Andy Clark), but that's just who and
> what we are as a species, no more, no less. Unfortunately, it also makes us
> extremely Narcissistic because we are the only species that 'knows that we
> know', which tends to innately strike fear of death into us, BUT that is
> mitigated by the perpetual gaining of knowledge through the scientific
> method. So in terms of David Bohm's expression of this in his book
> "Wholeness and the Implicate Order" as The Explicate Order, which is the
> way we see things through our subjective senses, versus the Implicate
> Order, which is the absolute true order of things, scientific knowledge
> moves us ever further away from the Explicate Order, and toward the
> Implicate Order. I hope that was helpful, and I welcome any and all
> comments, criticisms, etc, etc in the spirit of constructive dialogue.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 5:27 AM Joseph Michalski <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Greetings from the frozen north John (et al.). Thank you for your latest
> contributions. As ever, I find your work tremendously fascinating. I think
> I largely agree with your argument. Maybe I'm just struggling with the
> semantics in some ways. I fully agree with the linkage of energy to the
> homeostatic processes and the various "survival" mechanisms in nature
> across all forms of life. And I entirely agree with your argument about
> cellular efforts to maintain information distinctiveness and energy
> efficiencies, at least at the theoretical level (I have no applied
> experience in the field beyond my novice attempts to study life through
> microscopes as an undergraduate!). Perhaps it's just the fact that, apart
> from our anthropomorphism, we have just conventionally used the term
> "consciousness" in conjunction with the presence of the "mind" and mental
> behavior. But if you're main argument, as I get used to the more complex
> language you use to describe the biological processes, is that everything
> biological - from the cellular to the organismic levels - responds to their
> environments by deploying energy and processing information to maintain
> organizational continuity (my wording) or homeostasis, then I agree fully.
> And then, as you've indicated, you can define consciousness & intelligence
> as linked to these processes as opposed to our usual link to the Mind or
> "mental behavior." Or maybe I'm must over(under?)-thinking the argument!
>
>
>
> Thanks again for sharing some of your latest work. I do think that you and
> your colleagues have offered a fascinating argument about how to
> conceptualize the "self" in an even grander fashion. With kind regards, -Joe
>
>
>
> Dr. Joseph H. Michalski
>
> Associate Academic Dean
>
> King’s University College at Western University
>
> 266 Epworth Avenue
>
> London, Ontario, Canada  N6A 2M3
>
> Tel: (519) 433-3491
>
> Fax: (519) 963-1263
>
> Email: [log in to unmask]
>
> ______________________
>
> *ei*π + 1 = 0
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
> [log in to unmask]> on behalf of JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]
> >
> *Sent:* Monday, January 21, 2019 1:54 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: + True Good Beautiful Self-States
>
>
>
> Dear Gregg and Joe, thanks for sharing that clip from Amadeus. Based on my
> own reduction of 'self' with Bill Miller (see attached; ideally to be read
> in the context of 'The Singularity of Nature' (see attached), I think that
> the transactional process between Salieri and Mozart required that both had
> a strong sense of who they were, because if not, one would have subsumed
> the other for lack of 'character strength' for lack of a better term.
> Ideally, they would have struck a homeostatic 'balance' that you are
> referring to as the + TGB SS. But ultimately I think we have to understand
> the premise of 'how and why' we exist or this is all just sophistry. Why
> homeostasis- because it is the mechanism that prevailed post-Big
> Bang....the 'equal and opposite reaction that ascribes to Newton's Third
> Law of Motion. I say that because without it there would be no matter, just
> free, chaotic energy (Alfred North Whitehead's 'Process Philosophy'). So
> homeostasis is the universal principle behind all matter, inanimate and
> animate alike. So that would suggest pan-psychism, which we agree seems
> silly- a rock is not conscious, unless we are defining consciousness as
> what we humans think it is, but is not.  Cut to the chase, I think that we
> misconstrue consciousness as being aware of ourselves and our surroundings,
> but that is an anthropomorphism. All organisms are conscious, it's just a
> function of their particular environment/Niche as to what it constitutes,
> which is the endogenization of the external environment, forming physiology
> by compartmentalizing those features of the Laws of Nature in order to
> survive and remain in sync with The First Principles of Physiology, which
> reference the Singularity prior to the Big Bang. So in other words
> Consciousness is the way in which we and all matter connect with the Cosmos
> as the entirety of the product of the Singularity/Big Bang. Only then will
> we understand the + TGB SS, IMHO.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 6:02 AM Joseph Michalski <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Thanks for sharing Gregg. Indeed, I had transcribed the words of the clip
> and shared these because I thought it represented such an excellent example
> of what the pursuit of the TGB looks like when, however fleetingly, that
> occurs unfettered by all the trappings of one's ego. It's below zero here
> (Fahrenheit), but I already have a warm feeling for the rest of the day!
> Peace, -Joe
>
>
>
> Dr. Joseph H. Michalski
>
> Associate Academic Dean
>
> King’s University College at Western University
>
> 266 Epworth Avenue
>
> London, Ontario, Canada  N6A 2M3
>
> Tel: (519) 433-3491
>
> Fax: (519) 963-1263
>
> Email: [log in to unmask]
>
> ______________________
>
> *ei*π + 1 = 0
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
> [log in to unmask]> on behalf of Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
> [log in to unmask]>
> *Sent:* Monday, January 21, 2019 8:15 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* + True Good Beautiful Self-States
>
>
>
> Hi List,
>
>   Joe M and I were talking yesterday about the nature of Positive
> True/Good/Beautiful Self-states (+ TGB SS), relative to Negative
> False/Bad/Ugly Self-States (- FBU SS). He reminded me of the movie Amadeus,
> and explained why it was such a great illustration of these dynamics
> (although apparently the movie is not exactly an accurate portrayal of
> Salieri’s actual relationship to Mozart). In the movie, Salieri struggles
> with feelings of jealousy, envy and inadequacy, and at the same time, loves
> the beauty of Mozart.
>
>
>
>   Here is a great clip where he makes full contact with that side of the
> equation and thus you can see and feel the + TGB SS flow…
>
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__video.search.yahoo.com_yhs_search-3Ffr-3Dyhs-2Ditm-2D001-26hsimp-3Dyhs-2D001-26hspart-3Ditm-26p-3Dmozart-2Bsalieri-2Bfavorite-23id-3D1-26vid-3Dec20d8e7c1a0f8481a186b0532e2f150-26action-3Dclick&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=8eFl7R5jcqdh9GkvxqOVPMwgqGf8KGEIPw307jJf71k&s=0Ldr6AJIU-pnEOspsHgU18jLApey6l9fzd3wxz38nFQ&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__video.search.yahoo.com_yhs_search-3Ffr-3Dyhs-2Ditm-2D001-26hsimp-3Dyhs-2D001-26hspart-3Ditm-26p-3Dmozart-2Bsalieri-2Bfavorite-23id-3D1-26vid-3Dec20d8e7c1a0f8481a186b0532e2f150-26action-3Dclick&d=DwMF-w&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=joZshrnMRKKNH0IZ2n6Sp_XKKxlpaFEIULZwPzqQLyw&s=A8VyhjcugTf7mTdBvnCpsx0F1g304JzMc1WBdDtH2KQ&e=>
>
> mozart salieri favorite - Yahoo Video Search Results
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__video.search.yahoo.com_yhs_search-3Ffr-3Dyhs-2Ditm-2D001-26hsimp-3Dyhs-2D001-26hspart-3Ditm-26p-3Dmozart-2Bsalieri-2Bfavorite-23id-3D1-26vid-3Dec20d8e7c1a0f8481a186b0532e2f150-26action-3Dclick&d=DwMF-w&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=joZshrnMRKKNH0IZ2n6Sp_XKKxlpaFEIULZwPzqQLyw&s=A8VyhjcugTf7mTdBvnCpsx0F1g304JzMc1WBdDtH2KQ&e=>
>
> video.search.yahoo.com
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__video.search.yahoo.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=felM6t-23shozx04zWWYuMYveYgVSLrmBcAdF8HJ0ls&s=41mXkwngbtuHsClipM7egoI1AAGfDEOhjHs9BjlCQwQ&e=>
>
> The search engine that helps you find exactly what you're looking for.
> Find the most relevant information, video, images, and answers from all
> across the Web.
>
>
>
>
>
>   Thanks to Joe who pointed this out to me yesterday.
>
>
>
> Best,
> G
>
> ############################
>
> 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
>

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

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