Gregg, apologies for challenging what we all normally think of as
consciousness (what's between our ears as it were), but I think it's more
'fun' to get out of that box because that's what my mission as a scientist
is......to go where no one has gone before. Not just for the sake of
sophistry, but to know what we do not know. Regarding qualia, I think they
are a mind/body experience which can be initiated in either the body or the
brain, but then it has to be 'processed' by its counterpart (brain-body or
body-brain). I keep wondering, for example, whether the time difference
between the action and recognition (what is it, 300 v 500 milliseconds) in
that classic experiment is a manifestation of what I am talking about. And
yes, I do think that paramecia can experience qualia, it's just at their
level of interaction with their internal and external environment. I find
it hard to think that we are unique as a species that has evolved fromt he
same origin as yeast. That just seems narcissistic and down right
wrong.......Consciousness is a continuum that not just we humans experience
IMO. It smacks of Anthropic principle, which is patently wrong. I will
refer to the fact that cholesterol appearing in the cell membrane was the
'game changer' for vertebrate evolution, fostering metabolism, locomotion
and gas exchange by thinning out the cell membrane. Locomotion was
facilitated by increasing cytoplasmic streaming, but that is a homolog of
arms, legs, wings; metabolism was facilitated, and that is a homolog of the
gastrointestinal tract; gas exchange was facilitated, and that is a homolog
of the respiratory system (which is how I got into this mind space, given
that lipids are involved in the adaptation for gas exchange from paramecia
to Man through its role in expediting the flow of gas in and out of the
organism universally. I think all of these homologs also amplified
consciousness in the process by facilitating the relationship between the
organism and its environment.

As for whether your questions are relevant to my scheme, yes they are
because you're asking them in the context of the conventional way in which
we think about qualia, whereas I am in a 'cosmologic' frame that opens up
to a much broader continuum between physics and physiology- *our reach
should exceed our grasp*. We can live in 'Whoville' or accept the fact that
we are part and parcel of the Cosmos....take your pick....I chose Cosmology
because then, for example, mortality doesn't scare me (as much)....The Big
Chill or The Big Thrill? I think that what I am talking about favors the
latter state of mind. That may/not be helpful to your mission, though
you've circumscribed it as the "Big Theory of Knowledge", so I feel
justified in rolling out the biggest 'box' possible. If you can bear with
me for one more thought in that context, at the end of the day there will
be pieces of the puzzle that are left over.......how to cope with that is
what I'm talkin' about. And just maybe that would be useful in your patient
population or in your counseling??? TBC

On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 6:12 AM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> John,
>
>   I look forward to discussing this issue more with you. There is
> definitely quite a bit of tricky language game terminology going on here.
> When you say that “consciousness is the state of being for all life,” then
> I know that we are not talking/referencing the same thing when the term. I
> was hoping we could align our language games via the back up and four
> layered view of consciousness I offered. Maybe we can, but maybe not.
>
>
>
> Let me try one more angle. In this context, I am interested in
> subjectivity, the first person, felt experience of being. We can define the
> simplest elements of subjectivity as “qualia.” Examples of qualia are
> seeing red, feeling pain, being hungry.
>
>
>
>   I believe (and think the evidence is overwhelming) that the capacity to
> experience qualia (at least in humans) is brain-based.
>
>
>
> My first question then is, do you agree that in humans the experience of
> qualia is brain based?
>
>
>
> My second question is: Do you believe that a paramecium
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Paramecium&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=l6ke27egyUfSPV7kwBN7zDEN_MqHoMKS2ix5Razrh1I&s=QA-SUdvMSmAUO1seDhWFe9Tydjf2xCi-u3uo14IMTGM&e=>(which, for those who are not
> sure, is a single celled organism with no nervous system) can experience
> qualia?
>
>
>
> My third question: Are these questions relevant to your scheme? Or because
> I am defining qualia based on human reference, I am anthropomorphizing?
>
>
> Best,
> Gregg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion [mailto:TOK-SOCIETY-L@
> listserv.jmu.edu] *On Behalf Of *JOHN TORDAY
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 15, 2018 10:41 AM
>
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: FW: science practice issues
>
>
>
> Gregg, first off, thanks for engaging with me in this. Not to sound
> patronizing, but I assume that what I am talking about may seem too
> esoteric to be of use in what you are seeking to accomplish......but I
> would submit that it is ultimately of importance because until we get it
> 'right' we will continue to reinvent the (wrong) wheel IMO. In that vain, I
> will respond to your points:
>
>
>
> 1.       Physical-physiological precursors stemming from the Big Bang and
> the action-reaction cause cycles and giving rise to certain harmonizing,
> self-organizing phenomena  (e.g., yttrium atom synchronicity)
>
> [yes]
>
> 2.       Organic self-organizing/self-referential consciousness…the
> awareness a cell demonstrates. This grows in complexity with multi-celled
> creatures like plants. Such creatures have awareness, but only a
> “proto-subjective self,” meaning that it still is not at all clear that
> there is anything that it is like to “be” a cell, any more than there is
> something that it is like to be a table.
>
> [Not sure what you mean here. But I will say that what seems like
> increased complexity is an epiphenomenon. The multicellularity is in
> service to the unicell's efforts to maintain its interactions with the
> environment as phenotypic agent. We go back to the unicellular state in the
> life cycle, but we never actually leave it, if you get my drift.]
>
> 3.       Experiential consciousness…this is brain-based
> sensori—perceptual consciousness. It is full subjectivity and is the first
> “animal” perspective on the world that includes the fully felt
> perceptual-motivational-affective world of dogs and other mammals (at a
> minimum). But it does require a brain. Jellyfish and trees have far less
> subjective experience (based on all the neuro-psychological data we have
> access to).
>
> [Here is where I disagree with the premise that consciousness is not
> 'fully felt' until you reach the level of 'dogs and other mammals'. I think
> that even a paramecium senses its being when it reacts to its environment
> with changes in calcium fluxes. That is to say it is aware of its self in
> paramecium terms just as we are aware of our selves in Human terms, i.e.
> awareness in service to function is relative to the organism's needs in
> order for it to survive/thrive. The way you express the states of
> consciousness is anthropomorphizing, all due respect,IMO. Consciousness is
> the state of being for all of life, independent of how complex it may seem
> to be. I prefer this way of thinking because I think that it provides an
> informed way of thinking about our very existence in the broadest, most
> effective terms.
>
> So in studies where it has been claimed that when patients are given
> general anesthesia, that when they come out from under it they go through
> the phylogenetic steps that gave rise to consciousness, I think that the
> earliest step is closest to the Consciousness of the Singularity, and that
> the subsequent steps are those that bring us back to what we are calling
> perceptual consciousness. I am developing a symposium with a neurobiologist
> at UCLA, and this question has come up in our discussion about how to
> experimental test and falsify the hypothesis that there is a level of
> Consciousness that is the link to the Singularity, which is the basis for
> perceptual consciousness. That sense that there's something greater than
> ourselves, for example, or the innate sense of good/evil/morality......do
> you think there's any validity to this? I would reference the experiments
> on yeast, showing that in microgravity they 'lose touch' with the
> Singularity because their cytoskeleton collapses; the same holds true for
> lung and bone cells, and the ultimate consequence of losing touch with the
> Singularity occurs in zero 'G'. Penrose has stated that that's how
> anesthetics work, blocking the structure/function of tubulin in the
> cytoskeleton......any traction here?]
>
> 4.       Explicit, deliberative self-conscious of adult persons, as in I
> am aware that I am deliberately choosing to write this email.
>
>
>
> [Sure, this is the day-to-day way in which cosmologic Consciousness
> manifests itself....BUT we cannot IMO neglect to consider that that act of
> composing the email is the aggregate of our physiology, which derives from
> the internalization of the Cosmos (Endosymbiosis), which references the
> Singularity/Consciousness]
>
>
>
> Does this work for you? [Yes....and No, as I have indicated]
>
>
>
> So did you want me to present at the meeting? And if so, for how long? J
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 6:12 AM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> You make a number of good/interesting points, John.
>
>
>
> For sake of clarity, would you agree with the following kinds/levels of
> consciousness across your continuum:
>
>
>
> 1.       Physical-physiological precursors stemming from the Big Bang and
> the action-reaction cause cycles and giving rise to certain harmonizing,
> self-organizing phenomena  (e.g., yttrium atom synchronicity)
>
> 2.       Organic self-organizing/self-referential consciousness…the
> awareness a cell demonstrates. This grows in complexity with multi-celled
> creatures like plants. Such creatures have awareness, but only a
> “proto-subjective self,” meaning that it still is not at all clear that
> there is anything that it is like to “be” a cell, any more than there is
> something that it is like to be a table.
>
> 3.       Experiential consciousness…this is brain-based
> sensori—perceptual consciousness. It is full subjectivity and is the first
> “animal” perspective on the world that includes the fully felt
> perceptual-motivational-affective world of dogs and other mammals (at a
> minimum). But it does require a brain. Jellyfish and trees have far less
> subjective experience (based on all the neuro-psychological data we have
> access to).
>
> 4.       Explicit, deliberative self-conscious of adult persons, as in I
> am aware that I am deliberately choosing to write this email.
>
>
>
> Does this work for you?
>
>
> G
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion [mailto:TOK-SOCIETY-L@
> listserv.jmu.edu] *On Behalf Of *JOHN TORDAY
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 14, 2018 10:22 AM
>
>
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: FW: science practice issues
>
>
>
> Gregg, thank you for that thoughtful reply. As you might expect, I will
> continue to maintain my position that consciousness is dictated by factors
> far beyond the 'nuts and bolts' of the brain mechanisms, even as
> sophisticated and intriguing as P3 wave functions. Don't get me wrong, we
> need to know about such processes because as far as I am concerned, in
> order to get at the outofthebox properties we need to know how the stuff in
> the box works. My point is that the stuff in the box should not be the end
> but the beginning of further understanding of how we link to the
> Singularity. I have used the example of Piaget's stages of development,
> having to crawl before we walk as an example of two ways of thinking about
> the same phenomenon. On the one hand, it is a heuristic for monitoring
> development, but on the other, it is a way of understanding how in the
> bigger picture we behave in ways that are either consistent with our
> epigenetic 'mission' for obtaining marks from the environment for future
> adaptations. This is why, for example, the endocrine system, which dictates
> the length and depth of the various phases of the life cycle, is under
> epigenetic control. So to delve into that a bit more deeply to exemplify
> what I am saying, as you know metabolic syndrome- obesity, hyptertension-
> is being intensively studied because of its affect on the populus these
> days. Starving the mother rat during the last half of pregnancy will cause
> metabolic syndrome in the offspring, but I don't think that's what the
> animal is actually adapting to evolutionarily. One of the other effects of
> the starvation is being small for gestational age, which seems like 'duh,
> of course, given that the fetus is deprived of food in utero', so it is
> largely overlooked. However, as a consequence of being born small the
> offspring experiences premature sexual maturation, which is what I think is
> actually being selected for......the animal hastening its entry into the
> next environment, which is 'expected' to be more food rich. The same thing
> happens in the slime mold Dictyostelium, which will switch from its free
> swimming amoeboid form to a sessile colonial form as a function of food
> abundance. The common denominator for both the precocious puberty in the
> rat and the switching of forms in the slime mold is the cytoskeleton
> sensing the food abundance in the environment through the Target of
> Rapamycin gene, which determines the state of the cell. My point is that
> the big picture view provides a way of understanding the causal
> relationships, whereas the in between phenotypes like obesity and
> hypertension are misleading......they are the consequence of premature
> aging and senescence, which are in service to the precocious puberty that
> gets you to the next environment quicker, that being where the organism
> began evolutionarily and logically. Another example is gastrulation, the
> step in embryogenesis when the mesoderm (the layer between the endoderm and
> ectoderm) is introduced into the embryo. Lewis Wolpert has famously said
> that "It is not birth, marriage, or death, but gastrulation
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Gastrulation&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=97tfu7dNWmHGl2dXICMmUz2RkBTT1qUc7-9GNk0_ZxE&s=4Z_AXkG2o0FBbp1Qfcx1Ym7KjArjA2yqCtdqzx0hYso&e=>
> which is truly the most important time in your life." He based that on the
> significant role of the mesoderm in forming the embryo of vertebrates. What
> he did not know then (and still may/not know) is that the genes that
> determine gastrulation are under epigenetic control. So here again, the
> environment is having a profound effect on development, homeostasis,
> health, physical and mental alike. My point is that whatever is controlling
> P3 waves, for example, has ultimately evolved under the egis of the
> Singularity. So it behooves us to think big about these processes or fail
> to understand their true nature IMO. To do otherwise is to fail to
> understand the significance of what is being observed. This may/not be of
> interest in practice, but I maintain that it should be for the sake of
> authenticity.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 5:44 AM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> John,
>
>   As you know, I consider your perspective novel and valuable, and I have
> grown in my appreciation for thinking of myself as a whole, physiologically
> coordinated entity. I also find the frame you offer about Phenotypes as
> agents fascinating and love the idea that the cell is engaged in niche
> construction and have realized that communication is another facet to what
> I have generally framed as information processing. So, I, for one, have
> been very much enriched by the “metaphysical scheme” you are offering. More
> to the point here, I agree that thinking about consciousness along a cosmic
> continuum is interesting. And associating consciousness with awareness is
> valuable.
>
>
>
>   All that said, I also will reiterate that there is what might be called *the
> phenomena of interest*, which in this case (at least in part) is
> subjectivity, the first person experience of being, the perceptual
> consciousness of my waking self, the theater of experience, and so forth. I
> do see how your position offers potentially interesting *frames *on this
> topic, but I don’t really see how it addresses the topic of
> subjectivity/perceptual conscious experience directly.
>
>
>
>   First and foremost, IMO, you must deal with the brain and the brain
> identity issue. That is, states of perceptual consciousness in humans (and
> presumably animals—see conversation I had with Jason Bessey) correspond to
> brain activity. No brain activity, no perceptual consciousness. To be more
> concrete about this, consider Dahaene’s work (in the book, Consciousness
> and the Brain), who finds strong evidence for a “P3” wave function being
> associated with conscious access. Conscious access is operationally defined
> as an individual being able to consciously report that they have seen a
> phenomena. The P3 wave refers to a wave of electrical activity that pings
> back and forth for 300 milliseconds between the parietal and pre-frontal
> lobes. He has a number of experimental angles (mostly subliminal perception
> models) that show that this wave is closely connected with whether or not
> someone actually experiences a phenomena on their subjective field. That to
> me is interesting, I bring it up because it is a series of investigations
> on the phenomena of interest, i.e., the human subjective experience of
> being. That, BTW, is a different conception of consciousness than awareness
> per se (right?). I agree that from a bottom up perspective that you have,
> we should consider a global conception of awareness as an interesting
> continuum concept. But cellular awareness is different than human conscious
> access point associated with the P3 ignition wave.
>
>
>
>   So, I guess what I am saying is that I agree that you offer a very
> interesting and important perspective on this. And you may well have “found
> the reductive line” that helps frame perceptual consciousness. However,
> until one solves/resolves the brain-subjectivity relation, I think the hard
> problem remains essentially unsolved.
>
>
> Best,
> Gregg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion [mailto:TOK-SOCIETY-L@
> listserv.jmu.edu] *On Behalf Of *JOHN TORDAY
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 13, 2018 10:31 AM
>
>
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: FW: science practice issues
>
>
>
> One additional thought regarding the idea of consciousness all the way
> down to the single-celled state (and beyond, to the Singularity). I have
> suggested that the unicell may have been the first Niche Construction (see
> attached), i.e. that the endogenization of the environment began with the
> unicellular state, and has never ceased to be the way in which life and the
> environment have engaged one another. If this is correct, then by
> internalizing all of existence (or at least that which is/was relevant to
> our existence) is Consciousness in the sense that the material and etherial
> are derived from the Singularity/Big Bang. In other words, our entire
> existence and raison d'etre are founded in the animization of the
> inanimate. That starts and ends with the unicellular state, so why not
> consider the likelihood that consciousness is pervasive throughout the
> organism, but only overtly expresses itself in discourse? After all, we
> consider 'body language' in our interactions, for example. I realize that
> this way of thinking about consciousness may seem to complicate the way a
> psychologist thinks about a patient, but in that context, I have long
> thought that my teaching pediatricians becoming neonatologists
> (pediatricians who care for preterm newborns) in research methods has
> helped in their way of seeing their patients as more than just 'the sum of
> their parts'. By analogy, understanding that consciousness transcends the
> mundane is of value in practicing clinical psychology, if  i may.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 4:26 PM, JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Gregg, I can understand your reservations about the cell being conscious,
> but if you think of our physiology as a continuum, why wouldn't you
> consider that to be the case? When we are formed embryologically, we start
> from a unicellular state (the zygote), which gives rise to the 200+
> different cell types we are composed of. At each step of embryogenesis the
> cells are sensing their 'being' through homeostasis, culminating in the
> offspring. Jesse Roth showed back in the 80's that insulin is produced by
> neurons, for example, whereas we usually think of it being produced by the
> beta islet cells of the pancreas......all the cells of the body have the
> same genetic make-up, it's just that some do specialized things. And
> there's evidence of synchronized calcium flow between liver cells (Wu D,
> Jia Y. Mean-field coupling of calcium oscillations in a multicellular
> system of rat hepatocytes. Biophys Chem. 2007 Feb;125(2-3):247-53)
> supporting the idea that all cells are 'aware' of their surroundings, not
> just neurons. As for this being relevant to the 'hard problem', as I have
> said before, the microtubules of the brain that Penrose has said are the
> basis for integrated thought are present in the cells of the visceral
> organs too. So when neuroendocrine hormones are produced in the brain
> (endorphins, oxytocin) they act on the brain and body to integrate and
> synchronize the calcium signals (Torday JS. Pleiotropy, the physiologic
> basis for biologic fields. Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 2018 Feb 9), which may be
> the 'solution' to the hard problem(?). I consider this idea to be of
> importance because it provides a way to understand consciousness as
> derivative of the Cosmic Consciousness of the Singularity, i.e. this is why
> we believe that there is something greater than ourselves that may/not be
> what we usually think of as religion. As such that relationship is of
> importance in considering the basis for normal v abnormal psychology in the
> big picture. Hope that was helpful.....j
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> John,
>
> Thanks for sharing these thoughts. As a function of our conversations, I
> definitely think of myself more as a “physiological whole.” As we have
> discussed, I love the idea of the brain as being a sort of “inverted skin”
> and that frees up some interesting thinking in me about how the brain is
> connected into the body. I am also internalizing more and more the idea of
> a continuum of awareness and thinking of biology as being a
> self-referential/self-organizing awareness entity.
>
>
>
> As we have discussed, though, I do continue to struggle with issues of
> terminology and what the terms we are using reference. Generally speaking,
> when I am using the term consciousness, I am using it differently than you
> (I think). I am using it as the “theater of experience” that I have. It is
> my first person view of the world. Here is one diagram that captures what I
> mean:
>
>
>
>
>
> The Yellow part is what I am referring to. It consists of
> sensory/perceptual inputs, drives and urges, emotionally charged action
> motives, imaginal wonderings (simulated actions), and narrative thought,
> which is the home of my explicit self-consciousness. That is the
> deliberative part of me that decides to write this email. When I go to
> sleep, the lights go out on that yellow part, and then they flicker on and
> off when I dream. If I could engage in lucid dreaming, then my
> self-conscious portion would also come on line.
>
>
>
> Anyway, if all the cells in my body are conscious in the sense you are
> using the term, then clearly we are talking about different phenomena. They
> may well be related. Cell-cell communication and awareness “accumulation”
> (if you will pardon the phrase) may well be intimately connected to what
> allows me to have conscious experience. But an important clue or frame is
> very different than explaining the hard problem, right?
>
>
> Best,
>
> Gregg
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion [mailto:TOK-SOCIETY-L@
> listserv.jmu.edu] *On Behalf Of *JOHN TORDAY
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 11, 2018 10:59 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: FW: science practice issues
>
>
>
> Gregg, thank you for sharing your deep thoughts on the science and
> practice of psychology. With all humility, I currently wonder whether you
> and I are barking up the same tree (ultimately) with regard to
> understanding physiology as the common denominator for both mind and body.
> That is to say, if we don't understand the 'big picture' central theory of
> what life constitutes, then when things go awry we use ad hoc methods
> rather than addressing the problem at its root cause- that's true in both
> medicine and psychology. So in that spirit I share a manuscript submitted
> for publication for sharing my thoughts about 'the great scheme of things'.
> Perhaps this is too metaphysical for the ToK/List, but I thought the time
> may have come to run it up the flagpole.....
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>   Well, John, funny you should raise the issue of big picture stuff and
> the state of mental health and the relationship between science and
> practice. It has been very much on my mind, as I have been engaged in a
> spirited debate with a number of folks on this issue. The debate has been
> triggered by APA treatment guidelines for PTSD. The APA posted them last
> year, and there was a strong push to repeal them. Although the push
> generated a petition signed by almost 50,000 folks, and a petition in
> support of the guidelines only generated 3,500, yesterday the guidelines
> were upheld.
>
>
>
> I signed neither petition and in many ways sit in a unique position
> relative to the debate. Here are some musings if you want to get a flavor.
> As with any complicated guild/institution, the issues are very complicated
> once you start getting into the specifics of the debate.
>
>
>
> Anyway, this is just food for thought
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Gregg
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx
> *Sent:* Saturday, March 10, 2018 3:56 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* science practice issues
>
>
>
> HI Unified Psych list,
>
>
>
> I thought I would share with this list that I have been musing a lot about
> the whole science-practice thing lately. I spent the day sketching out the
> various pieces of the puzzle as I see them and as they have been floating
> around in my head. This is a major project and what I am sharing is more
> like a brainstorm than any specific argument. But I decided to share it
> here to let others know how I am kicking things around.
>
>
>
> Fundamentally, I am trying to point out a couple of things.
>
>
>
> First, there are at least three elements always going on in the
> science-practice divide. There is the (1) *practice element* (what one is
> doing in the clinic room), there is the (2) *research element* (what
> empirical studies have been done) and there is one’s (3) *conceptual
> scheme* that links the two and provides the basic interpretive frame for
> both.
>
>
>
> Virtually ALL of my attention in my thinking and work is on the last part.
> That is, my mission has been to develop a conceptual scheme that is both up
> to the task of practice and assimilate and integrates research in a
> cumulative and workable manner. The Unified Theory/Unified Approach
> framework I operate from is the sense-making system I use for both science
> and practice.
>
>
>
> In wrestling with the guideline debate, I keep coming back to the
> question, W*hat is the larger conceptual scheme that the psychologist is
> operating off of that justifies the application of research (or not) in the
> specific instance of them treating a particular individual in a particular
> context? *
>
>
>
> I have been completely struck by the complete absence of this element in
> the PTSD Guidelines. Indeed, this is why I don’t think they are
> well-characterized as guidelines, but instead are essentially a literature
> review.
>
>
>
> The other thing that has launched into my consciousness in this debate is
> that I differentiate between levels of intervention and specifically
> between counseling, psychotherapy, and psychological treatment. I share
> this distinction in various ways and various times with my students, but it
> has emerged as important in this debate as I have dialogued with many folks
> about it. The attached document offers some reflections on such
> distinctions. The short of it is that when folks are dealing with full
> blown mental disorders, such that it is pretty clear that the disorder is a
> major problem rather than a symptom of the problem, then we do need a more
> structured, active, systematic approach, IMO. For example, when a client is
> in the midst of a MDD of moderate-to-severe levels, there are definitely
> things that NEED TO BE DONE. The situation is much less prescribed when
> dealing with adjustment disorder with depressed mood into MDD mild.
>
>
>
> Another thing that this highlighted is that I do believe I am at a place
> where I am ready to delineate my general approach to psychotherapy with
> folks who I would classify as falling in the neurotic cluster (clinically
> sig negative affect, relational identity problems, seeking psychotherapy
> but not well-characterized by a full blown mental disorder…that is, an
> depressed/discouraged/anxious/low resilient/low self-esteem/isolated
> person). This starts with my Well-being check up system, and then leads
> into shared understanding of focus for enhancing adaptive living.
>
>
>
> What is needed in next steps to dance with the conventual system is to
> systematize this approach, test it and show that it at least gets the
> normal standard good results of a bona fide approach and then have that be
> the control condition against which other conditions are measured. I
> acknowledge that a part of me resists this both because of the work (I am
> dispositionally more of a theorist than researcher) and I feel that a
> principled approach to treatment that is grounded in the best available
> evidence is all the justification that is needed for the approach.
>
>
>
> I am also thinking that this general bona fide psychotherapy would not
> only be used for the neurotic cluster. But rather the vision I have is that
> it would become the control condition relative to specific psychological
> treatments for specific problems. If someone could beat my generic,
> principled approach to psychotherapy in a specified psychological treatment
> for a specific condition (e.g., bulimia, PTSD, OCD) then we could have high
> confidence that it was effective relative to effective practitioners
> general approach.  This, of course, points out one of the great weaknesses
> of ESTs. What they mean has everything to do with what they have been
> compared to. However, that is often not clear or not strong and thus the
> meaning of effect sizes are definitely up for debate in terms of what they
> should guide an experienced clinician to do. If though, as psychological
> treatment system could systematically outperform a generic bona fide
> principled psychotherapy, then I would be impressed and keen on learning
> it.
>
>
>
> Well, that is how I have spent my Saturday. Perhaps folks less obsessed
> with our field are actually getting out and having fun 😊.
>
>
>
> Please share thoughts if you have them.
>
>
> 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
>
> ############################
>
> 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