Thanks for sharing these thoughts, Jamie. Much of what you say here makes good sense.

 

I am in the thick of writing about how to get a good, clean metaphysical description of mind and consciousness for psychology. Attached is a little snippet. As I was developing it, I had what might be helpful realization, namely that there are three fundamentally different conceptions of mind, that have different ontological referents and different epistemological considerations. I think it sets the stage for a clearer resolution to the problem of psychology. Attached is a snippet from my book on the domains of mental processes, or Mind1, Mind2, and Mind3.

 

Best,
Gregg

 

From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Jamie D
Sent: Friday, March 6, 2020 2:48 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Mapping Gregg's Tripartite Model Onto the ToK

 

 

Some notes on the tripartite consciousness:

 

* consciousness is usually understood to be individuated. 

 

*The narrative, private self feels integrated with the imagination/ working memory/ global workspace.

 

*the public self seems to be a constantly updating model inferred from intersubjective feedback, updated in the global workspace, and “stored” in the subconscious, and body, I suppose. But in itself, I have a problem seeing this as a/the subjective, present “being”.

 

*the subjective “being” is then the “experienced self” or just “experience”.

 

*perhaps the “experience(d self)” is an integrated informational “being” (present moment) where causality is incessantly colliding into the present moment from a collapsing light cone ~ from the past (starlight hitting your eyes from the past)

(I found a YouTube physicist explore this idea with light cones: 

https://youtu.be/1cha-FJdFso)

 

*So I can see how these three things are “selves”, but only the bottom one actually “consciousness”, and containing the first two (and...possibly everything) 

 

*also, the Freudian filter, in the image, seems to imply that the private narrative knows the truth, keeping info out of the experience. But I’d thing it’s the other way around. The narration, which maintains an ontology with memory, is prevented from ever making information explicit, because of emotional pressure (that must be overrided in order to prevent a schism)

 

*...also, if such schisms (lacks of integrity) are so common from widespread self serving denial, then it should only take a relatively minor change in social context for that vulnerability to be exploited, causing behavioral problems in many people. This would support a hunch of mine that mental illness is far more culturally-contextual than biological. Also why some dominant people are violently opposed to honest, earnest inquiry. It also justifies my own incessant social stress.

 

 

-Jamie

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 6:17 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Jason,

  That is interesting, because you have known the system well for a while, but I guess that wasn’t super obvious. Maybe I have not made that clear because it is so obvious to me that I did not even realize it would not be obvious to others. So, thanks for highlighting that. I think I need more of this kind of thing, because I often don’t even know what is an is not obvious anymore. Thus, I think I often gloss over stuff that I actually should be highlighting because it already is in the “background” of my knowledge system.  

 

  Anyway, here is a diagram that shows the lineup of the nest dimensional growth hierarchies of Matter, Life, Mind and Culture on the Tripartite Model. The Person-Culture plane is mediated by linguistic justification, the Animal-Mind plane by neuro-cognitive-behavioral functional activity, the Organism-Life Plane by biophysiology and the Matter plane by physiochemistry. These, of course, are nested in side of each other, but also the higher planes operate above the lower planes. That is one of the paradoxes that is resolved, which is how can a higher plane be both within and above a lower dimension.

 

I will try to be more explicit about this going forward.

 

 

From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of nysa71
Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2020 8:58 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Mapping Gregg's Tripartite Model Onto the ToK

 

Gregg,

Though I think it's at least been alluded to in your writing, couldn't your tripartite model simply map directly onto the ToK?

That is, insofar that the Private Self is basically the Ego, and that the Ego is the mental organ of justification, then wouldn't such a mapping essentially look like this:

Public Self in the lower part of the 4th/Cultural Dimension
Private Self on the joint point between the 3rd and 4th dimensions
Experiential Self in the upper part of the 3rd/Mind Dimension

~ Jason

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

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

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

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