Hi Brent,

 

  I think there is some confusion about Mind3. I would not say, exactly, that it “includes” Mind1 and Mind2. Rather, it depends on them. The point of the table, here:

 

Is that the contents of Mind3 are available across the interior and exterior perspectives. That is, I am sharing with you directly my propositionally grounded, linguistically mediated self-conscious justification narrative for the domain of Mind3. To the extent you are a fluid speaker of English and have access to the vocabulary, you can fully observe this process (to the extent that I make it public).

 

I think I have a frame on the other aspects of what you write. For example, here is Jana Uher’s representation that includes the “dual aspect” element that I think you are getting at (i.e., that is why there are two depictions of the environment—one is the perceived situation and the other is the ontic reality, that exists independent of the perception of the situation that the individual is constructing in their psyche):

 

  

I am not sure that email is the best way to get at this, as we need to be so very careful and clear with our language, and our understanding of epistemology and the ontological referents we have in mind. Perhaps a discussion at some point would be more fruitful.