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.

---

Hi Gregg

I think our most interesting thoughts come when we are doing things like mowing the lawn :-)

Also, all of us who think have our frustrations, depending on where we are coming from, and what our interests are.   

I think what you are doing in this listing is fascinating and worthwhile, and I have considerable respect for you as a person, otherwise I would not remain a member.  However, I have my frustrations.  I am, I know, repeating here what I have said in a different way before. But my frustration is that you focus on epistemological considerations, and pay little attention to ontological ones.  This, in my view, limits considerably what you can achieve, however interesting your work, and its relevance in a particular context.   And far too limiting when it comes to inquiring into consciousness.   For me, the ultimate framing is ontological in nature, and there can be no truly satisfying understanding of ourselves and the world without proper consideration of that. 

Jung said, in his autobiography Memories, Dreams, Reflections, "The decisive question for man is: Is he related to something infinite or not?".  I think one's answer to that ontological question influences our epistemological views.   And if we  ignore it?  Well, I think our unspoken fears/ hopes/assumptions etc about the wider context in which this life is located (if, of course, there is any such context) will influence the rest of what we do and think anyway. 

As I understand it, you have made a conscious decision to 'bracket out' ontological questions, to focus only on the natural world we experience, either subjectively or objectively.   Which is absolutely fine.   But that limitation will frustrate some people in the same way as Chalmers et al frustrated you.  We all choose what we select as the focus of our inquiry. 

I personally have been very much influenced by John Heron (transpersonal psychologist).  He is in his 90s now, but his grandson has created a website of all his work during his lifetime https://johnheron-archive.co.uk/books.  So all his writing, including his books, are freely available.      I would recommend particularly Co-operative Inquiry: Research into the Human Condition, and Sacred Science.  Probably more than any other person I have met, John has been able to integrate a huge intellect and a capacity to theorise and conceptualise,  with a passion for experiential exploration of the sacred and subtle.  And his notion of an extended epistemology - experiential, presentation, propositional and practical - is well known and used in many contexts. 

I won't write more here.  I guess all I am saying - and I'm aware of this with my own interests - is that it's important to know what frustrates us and why; but it is also important to know what it is about what we are doing that may frustrate others, and why.   It may not change what choices we make about what we do, but it may help explain why the models we create don't perhaps get as much attention as we might like.

Very best wishes

Joan 

On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 at 13:08, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Folks,

 

Let me give a little context for the note below on the Tree, Coin and Garden. While I was mowing my lawn over the weekend, I was listening to this “closer to the truth” series on consciousness:

Here is the first part: https://www.closertotruth.com/series/what-consciousness-part-1. There are five parts overall.

 

Per usual, I found myself getting frustrated listening to these guys (per usual, it was mostly guys—but that is another conversation). The discussants were all entering in the interview from a particular frame of reference. As is my tendency, I wanted the zoomed out frame of reference for all the frames of reference. But folks did not do that. They just started from their vantage point.

 

The argument in my head was we need to “box in” this conversation about consciousness in general and the best place to start is to recognize three epistemological frames as follows: 1)the object-science; 2) subjective-phenomenology and 3) intersubjective-social construction epistemological frames. If you don’t do that, you get muck and equivocation rather than understanding, coherence and clarity.

 

Consider, for example, how to respond to a simple question: Can we observe consciousness? The answer to this question completely depends on the epistemological frame. From the Tree/objective science vantage point the answer is “only indirectly”. If we go to the Map of Mind, the objective exterior epistemology that grounds the language game of science can access it via Mind1a,b and Mind3b. That is, overt animal activity (Mind1b) gives us functional awareness and response, neurocognitive flow (Mind1a) gives us neuronal correlates, and verbal behaviors (Mind3b) give us self-report and public narration. Such are the areas that Chalmers calls “the easy problems” that indirectly teach you about subjective conscious experience, but are missing a key ingredient. Now, the reason an objective language game like science is missing a key ingredient pertaining to subjectivity is not hard to understand. The rules of scientific discourse are defined by the language of objectivity, which is a different epistemological frame than the interior epistemology of subjectivity.  

 

If we ask the question “Can you observe consciousness” from the vantage point of subjectivity (represented by the iQuad Coin) we get a totally different answer. Of course I can observe my consciousness from the inside! Indeed, my consciousness is the epistemological portal of observation I have. Put differently, can I observe anything else? Not really. How could I?

 

Finally, if we shift over to the intersubjective “we”, we get into those who take a Wittgenstein language game approach and argue the whole “private public” issue is confused. Which it is, when our epistemology is framed by the shared context of intersubjective systems of justification. Thus, the language game rejection of the problem. But the problem is not at all confused when we stay with the objective-versus-subjective frame. Why else has science has such difficulty?  

 

In other words, three totally different answers depending on the epistemological frame being brought to the discussion.

 

Yet, as far as I could tell, no one had a clear way to frame the frames.

 

And it seems to me that the Tree, Coin, and Garden make that point with relative ease.

 

Welcome thoughts.

 

Best,

G

 

From: Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 7:31 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: TOK The Tree, the Coin and the Garden as the It, the I and the We

 

Hi Folks,

 

  Over the weekend I was thinking it might be helpful to frame the Tree, the Coin and the Garden as addressing the “it”, “I”, and the “We” such as in the following representation:

 

 

I welcome thoughts…

Best,

___________________________________________

Gregg Henriques, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Graduate Psychology
216 Johnston Hall
MSC 7401
James Madison University
Harrisonburg, VA 22807
(540) 568-7857 (phone)
(540) 568-4747 (fax)

Be that which enhances dignity and well-being with integrity.

Check out the Unified Theory Of Knowledge homepage at:

https://www.unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org/

 

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

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