Hi Gregg, Thank you for the clarifications, and I see that I was previously confusing *mind 3* as simply the domain of exterior epistemology whereas I see now the 2020 diagram of *map of mind 1 2 3 *allows for a clearer distinction between verbal and non-verbal overt mental behavior (Indeed, an improvement from my humble view!) [image: image.png] -Chance On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 5:52 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx < [log in to unmask]> wrote: > Hi Chance, > > > > Thanks for this note. I too hear the chatter. > > > > Re the question about Mind 2…yes, although it should be noted that the > private narrator is Mind3a (here is the Map of Mind blog > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_202010_the-2Dmap-2Dmind-2D1-2D2-2D3&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=FXQRAQuSvcy4IeoyQj27aqIeqOquw8DDGacWn9cKiH0&s=8X2zDdKjl24Si7Gngm2SD_agQ-r--cYpsK9kT2JZzr0&e= >). > It is Mind3 because it is mediated by language and can be shared publicly > via speech or writing without losing its form (Mind3b, or “verbal > behavior”). But, yes, Mind2 is where the (nonverbal) images of simulated > thought reside. Indeed, in my work with John Vervaeke, we are outlining a > clearer picture of Mind2, starting at what we call “the base of sentience” > and moving up the phylogenetic scale. Here is a blog I did on the five > steps to human consciousness that lays this out > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_202102_human-2Dconsciousness-2Din-2Dfive-2Dbasic-2Dsteps&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=FXQRAQuSvcy4IeoyQj27aqIeqOquw8DDGacWn9cKiH0&s=kOl30y_gssQPCzMJBg5LuD8ymzpoeAM_vwxXJ70kWS8&e= >. > > > > > Take care, friend. > > G > > > > *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion < > [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Chance McDermott > *Sent:* Sunday, April 11, 2021 11:13 PM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: TOK: Clip from my talk with John > > > > *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links > or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is > safe. > ------------------------------ > > Thank you for the summary, Gregg, I enjoyed reading it and did experience > it as succinct and comprehensive with novel additions, such as the Z axis > and the descriptions of the quantum Z axis energy-information implicate > order. It seems like the story is being told in a more accessible way > without the need for knowledge of the nuances in psychological theories > and clinical psychology's histories and systems. > > > > Seeing the forms "as they are" is also a good description of the awareness > one may acquire after integrating the TOK system. I can't tell if it's me > or what, but the psychic chatter coming from people unaware of the > subjectivity of justification systems is squalling with intensity. > > > > QUESTION: If we zoom into Mind 2 do we still make the distinctions > between private narrator and the images of simulated thought outlined in > the original architecture of mind diagrams? > > > > Big brotherly love, > > > > -Chance > > > > On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 9:18 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx < > [log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Many thanks, friend. I am glad you like it. I found your description > enriching. > > > > I am definitely keen on the idea that I fell into the problem of > psychology precisely because there was a massive hole in our naturalistic > thinking, which can be specified by the Enlightenment Gap. It is obvious > that the Enlightenment failed to give us a coherent naturalistic scientific > philosophy that was aligned with human subjectivity and purpose (i.e., the > human self, soul, spirit). That was because they had the wrong ontological > picture. The right ontological picture is pretty clear to me these days. > Let me lay it out for you. I know, Chance, you know much of this already. > But what follows is a slightly new, simplified version that you might find > worth reading through. > > > > First, there is an “Energy-Information Implicate Order” that Matter > emerges out of. It does not have the same kind of space-time causal > properties as macroscopic matter. Let’s call this “Z”. At the Big > Beginning/Big Bang, we see that Energy-Information Singularity transforms > and differentiates and this is the beginning of the classic material world. > Here > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_watch-3Fv-3Dqq3YDfui-2DtI&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=q2yduuD_I3MOR3nBfmY_n0kH7jStx2KIochyKFEWOPw&s=ZkGfSKDPfr9dlyHSegtnpIFWn80tTzpirRnRkYtS7P0&e=> > is a nice easy to follow 15 minute video on the first three minutes. This > change reaction gives rise to the first dimension of complexification on > the ToK, represented as “Matter”. > > > > We can call Matter “dimension A”. The macroscopic “explicate order” arises > out of the Energy-Information implicate order. How this happens can be > framed as the “reality-measurement-emergent” questions/problems that makes > interpreting quantum mechanics so difficult. The intersection of the > Energy-Information and the Matter dimension is nevertheless clearly framed > by quantum mechanics and general relativity. The foundation is quantum > relativistic field theory, which shows that we can think of material > particles and forces as emerging out of fluctuations in the > Energy-Information field. The cohering of particles and forces give rise to > macroscopic objects with entangled histories. This is the atomic universe > and above at the macroscopic scale. The emergent phenomena include things > like atoms and chemical molecules, and stars and galaxies and, of course, > space and time as we experience them (in contrast to their “shape” at the > implicate order). So now we have *Z* + A. The physical sciences map *Z* + > *A*. > > > > We then get Life. Life is a fundamentally different kind of emergence > because it involves the “epistemic” process of knowing. By knowing I mean > that cells process information and communicate in networks to generate a > novel complex adaptive plane. The biological forms and processes represent > a different kind of causal process. That is why there is a shape-break on > the ToK. The new Life cone is the new living epistemic process involves the > way living things “know” about the external reality. We can call Life > “dimension B”. So now we have *Z* + A + *B*, with B mapped by biological > sciences > > > > We then, of course, have Mind, which we can call “dimension C”. Once > again, we have a fundamentally different kind of “epistemic” process. This > time, via animal sensory-movement relations that give rise to the animal > behavioral dimension of activity, which the ToK innovatively characterizes > as “Mind”. Way too much conceptual grammar is devoted to “the mind” and way > to little is devoted to seeing Mind in nature. As someone who is deeply > knowledgeable about ethology, I know you get this. But I am just spelling > it out. Of course, this evolutionary model allows us to clearly frame > neurocognition into subjective conscious experience in animals. Behavioral > Investment Theory gives the metatheory. The Map of Mind1,2,3 gives the > metaphysics, framing Mind1 as neurocognition and Mind2 as subjective > conscious experience. Now we have* Z* + A +* B* + *C*. C should have been > mapped by the basic psychological sciences, but the problem of psychology > emerged because the Enlightenment gave us the wrong grammar to talk about > “the mind”. > > > > Finally, we get the talking mind of human persons, Mind3 and the Culture > that Mind3 produces. The Culture-Person plane is “dimension D”. The network > of evolving systems of justification that function to coordinate people in > socio-ecological arrangements through time. It is the clear way the ToK > carves nature at the *B* to *C* and then *C* to *D* “joint points” that > it affords us a new and proper way to think about the animal-mind, > culture-person relationship. So now we have *Z* + *A* + *B* + *C* + *D*. > > > > Then we get the evolution of analytic justification into transcendent > knowing. This is the process of: (1) knowing about knowledge; (2)knowing > about reality and (3) knowing about the knower. Knowing about knowledge in > the West starts with the Greek and the Pythagoreans into Socrates into > Plato and Aristotle. They give us the birth of philosophical reflections > that attempt to climb out of the socially constructed “cave” and see the > forms of the world as they are. Then we get knowing about reality via > modern empirical natural science, which gives us the correspondent approach > grounded in math and method. > > > > Then we get knowing about the knower via UTOK. Let’s call this *X*. > > > > So now we have *Z* + *A* + *B* + *C* + *D* + *X*. > > > > We can depict this on the scale of time by complexification as follows: > > > > [image: A][image: D][image: X][image: Z][image: B][image: C][image: Time > since beginning of Matter][image: Z] > > > > > > *Z* = Energy-Information Implicate Order > > *A* = Material-Object Explicate Order of Complexity > > *B* = Living-Organism Order of Complexification > > *C *= Mental-Animal Order of Complexification > > *D* = Cultural-Person Order of Complexification > > *X* = Metaphysical Scientific Knower that Observes/Describes/Explains > Behavior Change > > > > Contextualized in the Tree and the Garden, the iQuad formulation is about > developing a logos approach to nonduality, such that it represents the case > where observer equals observed. Thus, it is the special case where > > the onto-epistemology of ontic-epistemic relations of observer/observed > nonduality can be represented as *X* = *Z* + *A* + *B* + *C* + *D. * > > > > This could be called “The Nondual Singularity Theory of Observer (Psyche) > = Observed (Behavior)” or something like that… > > Big love, brother. > Gregg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion < > [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Chance McDermott > *Sent:* Saturday, April 10, 2021 2:33 PM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: TOK: Clip from my talk with John > > > > *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links > or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is > safe. > ------------------------------ > > Gregg, > > > > I resonate with the mission statement: *"We are seeking a coherent, > naturalistic ontology that can revitalize the human soul and spirit in the > 21st century"* > > > > It appears to me to be dense, precise, and uplifting. > > > > Best, > > > > -Chance > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 10:04 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx < > [log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Hi TOK List, > > > > I am working with Christian Gross to set up the “UTOKing with Gregg > Podcast”. We will be formally announcing it Monday, and the first episode > will be released on Thursday. Apropos of Voices with Vervaeke (I was John’s > first guest), John is the first guest. Given the discussions on the list, I > thought I would share the two minute clip as a preview (thanks to Christian > for finding and selecting this clip). > > > > Here it is: > > > > * UTOKing with John Vervaeke - Clip.mp4 > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__drive.google.com_file_d_1kmAvCL4gVWCF75ooXrdMHSl4awuj2Zrw_view-3Fusp-3Ddrive-5Fweb&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=wjF8cZoiFchamTuxBdDEmw&m=AYFX0kB-9msai7Cux39UQ5sMlWA0a5jcO5wReMl34TA&s=AOMThfpnVBKU99d0Djl5uQKCCN80cV3jK1AaDX-LVgs&e=>* > > > > And this is the quote we are speaking about, which frames the clip and > much of the discussion: > > > > > > 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