Thanks for the clarification. I like what Skinner said personally. If only
it included the diachronic 'across space-time' component we'd be all
set.....any thoughts? Maybe it's more like 'mindfulness'? jst

On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 9:18 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> John,
>
>   Just for clarity, my definition of “Mind” is the way the word has
> emerged in radical behavioral and cognitive neuroscience circles. This is
> perhaps most clearly captured in B. F. Skinner’s (1987) comment, as follows:
>
>
>
> Cognitive psychologists like to say that "the mind is what the brain
> does," but surely the rest of the body plays a part. The mind is what the
> body does. It is what the person does. In other words, it  is behavior, and
> that is what behaviorists have been saying for more than half a century.
>
>
>
> ‘Beingness’ is another term that comes to mind as potentially referencing
> the Implicate Order (as in Sartre’s Being and Nothingness)
>
> G
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *JOHN TORDAY
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 23, 2019 10:54 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: + True Good Beautiful Self-States
>
>
>
> It's unfortunate that Mind already has a definition for you Gregg, because
> it would have been a good term, to my way of thinking, for the intersection
> of the Cosmological 'blueprint' and how our physiology complies with it,
> like an computer operating system and the software that utilizes it. Maybe
> a new term is needed? jst
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 7:42 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Thanks, John.
>
>
>
> I am reminded that when I use the term Mind (capitalized) I am referring
> to something very different when it is used by Descartes or many others.
> Mind on the ToK corresponds to the dimension of animal behavior, versus
> mind as human self-conscious reflection in many language games.
>
>
>
> So, your capitalizing Consciousness versus consciousness is important as
> it does highlight that the terms are referencing two different things in
> the universe.
>
>
> Best,
> Gregg
>
>
>
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *JOHN TORDAY
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 22, 2019 1:37 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: + True Good Beautiful Self-States
>
>
>
> 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=DwMFaQ&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=1gkoFURcBtvGCWYf28-v-ER0vB1jFCt1g_OTI5L0wuA&s=rDbpxhxFKk5bjGdlWQZyENyEKUXNwwqm_06QpdUZC3M&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
>
> ############################
>
> 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