LISTSERV - TOK-SOCIETY-L Archives

Hi Jamie,

I tackled the challenge of developing an effective definition of well-being as part of the unified project. The Nested Model articulates four different domains that constitute the concept of what the best way to define/conceive human well-being is. They are 1) the Subjective Experience of being, defined in terms of affective valence (i.e., Mind2), and reflective evaluation of (deep) life satisfaction and satisfaction with specific domains (Mind3); 2) the biophysiological and neuro-mental health and functioning of the individual (think here of being evaluated by a physician and a psychological doctor); 3) the environment, both in terms of material comforts and resources/stressors and the relational and social/cultural environments; and 4) the prescriptive values of the evaluator that determines what is deemed “good”.

FYI, all of this can be measured reasonably well. The problem that folks have not been able to resolve previously is the precise relationship between the domains and the relationship between describing what well-being is and prescribing what well-being ought to be.

(Note, re your question, the biophysiology is part of the holistic conception and you can certainly assess an animals’ physiological health/functioning).

Best,
Gregg

From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Waldemar Schmidt
Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2020 6:40 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Quantified valence

Jamie:

I’m glad you are better.

I agree, a “measurement” of psychic pain would be helpful.

Perhaps, one or more of the physical pain scales might be modified?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_scale

https://compass.rehab/patient-resources/medical-pain-scale

Best regards,

Waldemar

Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD
(Perseveret et Percipiunt)
503.631.8044

Strive not to be a success, but rather to be of value. (A Einstein)

On May 10, 2020, at 12:52 PM, Jamie D <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

The more I learn about consciousness, the brain etc, the more it seems we already know how we work.

One of my dreams has been to quantify suffering and wellbeing, in order to “correct” our common justification frames, where people too-often assume they know what other is going through, or that there isn’t anything more to know.

For instance, about a decade ago, I had a brief opiate addiction. My father, a police chief, expressed contempt at my claim that I was in so much pain. I wasn’t a dying cancer patient.

What pain could I claim to have had?

It was a dark time that I’m now many years past. But as an adoptee, separated from my mother as an infant, and having extreme, lifelong relational distress, that seems so natural for others to look upon with contempt, ...

As weak as I might appear in one frame, (having chosen to use opiates) there are many others where I’m regarded as brutally vigilant in my acceptance of being disconnected, going alone, or just accepting reality in ways others aren’t comfortable with...because it wasn’t a choice.

Anyway, what I meant to ask in this email was this:

Why can’t we measure valence and affect by measuring physiology? I read an article on suffering in the wild, which claimed the natural world is full of suffering because many animals have higher cortisol levels than domestic counterparts.

What would it take to measure a persons overall wellbeing? Could we one day refine our language as to normalize high empathetic intelligence? What better could direct our ethics?

--

-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