Cool reply Nicholas, I would suggest reviewing the book The Conscious Brain. My interpretation is that Attention, Consciousness, and Awareness are distinct. (Synonyms exist for a reason) According to the book, “attention engenders (creates) experience”…and I’m inclined to reconsider the Ancient Greek idea (reinterpreted) that *experience is created by attention coming out of the witness, invested to profit ideas…* (they apparently believed that light came *out* of the actual eyeball or something)…but *the attention is always invested inside the body, *within the brain, that’s one with all dimensions and possibilities within, (not merely the 5lb 3D object we hold in mind, but a *moving target).* A beautifully true idea I got from Dr. Sten Eckberg (a YouTube channel on theketo diet), is that *the digestive system is outside of the body. * And the Buddha said* the senses are the world. * We digest food as soon as it enters the mouth, and ultimately, the physical plane of existence is food for the soul. I mean, truly, all we see is (*at least one with*) our digestive system. I’m inside out, and if we keep thing is their proper context, I can say that everything outside is in my belly. The top of the ToK is the one infinite self. Everyone is the one. Jamie On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 4:37 PM Nicholas Lattanzio <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > *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. > ------------------------------ > This is a fun thread! I'll just throw in my elevator pitch for nonduality. > > It is often said in the Zen tradition that the sound of a gong is not the > sound of a gong, meaning that the actual sound (perception) and the words > "sound of a gong" (symbol) are clearly very very different things, > particularly so at an ontological level where they are essentially > polarized on the ToK (I don't know for sure but I think Gregg would put the > physical existence of sound somewhere in the Energy or Matter orders of > complexity whereas language and symbol are in Culture). These things are > very different, yet they generally mean the same thing (at least > heuristically) and may only differ in terms of the neurological pathways > differentially utilized to create that perception. > > So if they aren't one thing, and they aren't two separate things (Kantian > epistemology), and they exist at different levels of ontological > significance/behavioral complexity such that neither can be reduced or made > inferior to the other, then what the hell is it?? > > Nothing. No-thing. Not immaterial, not totally material. What, then, > transcends the dialectic of mind and matter as distinct entities? > Awareness. Not the nomenclature awareness most refer to, I mean direct > experience but bare existence awareness, awareness that need not be > experienced, similar to what Gregg calls the Unknown Knower or what in ACT > is called the Observing Self as compared to the Conceptualized Self (the > latter being a good definition of mind). > > Certainly mind exists and it certainly has some relative form of physical > existence. As Gregg stated, it is also a matter of one's ontological line > in the sand. Mind is physical? Yeah definitely, but physical is not mind, > so it is irreducible in that way. But how much does matter actually matter > if it too is not an ontological root? Is the energy that makes up the atoms > physical matter? Not by many definitions that relegate matter to being > "condensed energy," but the reduction problem exists there too. If you say > one you automatically create the other even if only in > possibility/potentiality, that is inescapable. > > I'll point out here that our experience of this conversation and this > conversation make a great example for this if you factor in (at least for > the sake of argument) a non-local awareness mediated by neurological > activity (meaning that awareness is a different kind of thing ontologically > than the experience of being aware), allowing for unverifiably varied and > individualized subjective experiences of the same exact thing. > > Regards, > > Nicholas G. Lattanzio, Psy.D. > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 4:05 PM Jamie D <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> *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. >> ------------------------------ >> I can certainly appreciate both the article and Gregg’s response. >> >> Part of the reason I’ve been drawn to the TOK is how it bridges our >> entire academic system…but when it comes to finding reliability >> communicating with *anyone, *no system has seemed reliable for me…. >> Which tells me the word *systemic, *with regards to social justice, >> isn’t outside but within…yet both, and far beyond the mere issues of the >> day. >> >> Plato regarded governing one’s soul as like governing a city, ….governing >> the various justifications or egos that live in us. >> >> *In moments o*f thinking to, or reasoning with, oneself, one must have >> another with whom to think. >> >> Yet in sports, flow, and meditation, we can transcend this duality. >> >> …. >> >> I find it sublime how fitting Richard Feynman’s words were, that when >> wood burns, it is literally *stored sun *emeging from the wood…. >> >> I think it’s the same with ego… >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 10:55 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx < >> [log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >>> Hi List, >>> >>> >>> >>> Although we hardly need more evidence for the Enlightenment Gap’s claim >>> that there is profound confusion regarding the relationship between matter >>> and mind in modern systems of understanding, here is yet another article >>> that makes the point, with the assertion that we should discard the >>> concepts of mental and the mind all together: >>> >>> >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__aeon.co_essays_why-2Dtheres-2Dno-2Dsuch-2Dthing-2Das-2Dthe-2Dmind-2Dand-2Dnothing-2Dis-2Dmental&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=ywgw17zEPT_wmxQDe66d7zf_0QsYW5reJ9iAO2l6pP8&s=m29gUGWUrWcTt0r17e60__p5G_T8Tsaux8S02E0_Ft4&e= >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__aeon.co_essays_why-2Dtheres-2Dno-2Dsuch-2Dthing-2Das-2Dthe-2Dmind-2Dand-2Dnothing-2Dis-2Dmental&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=cT8vjCLjfWzIQhdHcf_ts2FMRAdbg86nXWakKiF5Mt0&s=NOSWvnhY1F0nEs-HjL0DNHes4UXCkC6pwU2mmaW4ghk&e=> >>> >>> >>> >>> Since there are several new people on the UTOK list, I will take this >>> opportunity state what many here already know, which is that the central >>> feature of UTOK is that it affords us a new, different and much richer >>> metaphysical vocabulary for the domain of the mental. Indeed, my current >>> book is on how the UTOK solves the problem of psychology by affording us >>> clarity about the ontology of the mental. (summarized here >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__medium.com_unified-2Dtheory-2Dof-2Dknowledge_a-2Dnew-2Dapproach-2Dto-2Dthe-2Dscience-2Dof-2Dpsychology-2D66f2042e8c32&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=cT8vjCLjfWzIQhdHcf_ts2FMRAdbg86nXWakKiF5Mt0&s=PJjWM-Kbi1xImk4Mc1ji1rk23Y24urbVSchZSx2YCis&e=>). >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Because I want practice streamlining this, here is the basic summary: >>> First, via the ToK System’s divisions of complexification, it gives us the >>> category capital “M” Mind, which is a tier of complex adaptive behaviors in >>> nature. Specifically, it is the adaptive behaviors exhibited by complex >>> animals with brains that produce a functional effect on the >>> animal-environment relationship. These are the set of mental behaviors. >>> >>> >>> >>> Second, via the Map of Mind, we divide these mental behaviors first into >>> the neurocognitive processes within the nervous system (Mind1a) that can be >>> tracked by things like fMRIs, and the overt activities of animals that can >>> be observed (Mind1b). >>> >>> >>> >>> Mind2 is used to denote the interior epistemological space that is >>> subjective conscious experience that can only be accessed from the inside >>> and cannot be accessed directly from the outside. This divide is called the >>> epistemological gap. No camera or any other device we can consider allows >>> us to directly experience the Mind2 of another. The most interesting >>> possible exception to this I have seen is the Logan Twins who are conjoined >>> at the head, and share some brain domains. Even here, however, they >>> experience the world via their own epistemological portal and the way they >>> describe sharing thoughts is akin to talking. >>> >>> >>> >>> Speaking of talking, this is the domain of Mind3. Talking flows through >>> the interior and exterior without losing its form. It is a shared >>> intersubjective space. Mind3a is when it is private speech, Mind3b is when >>> it is translated across the barrier of the skin in some other medium. >>> >>> >>> >>> Finally, regarding UTOK’s solution to this world knot, it should also be >>> noted that science is anchored into the language game of behavior and the >>> exterior epistemological position. The ToK represents a behavioral systemic >>> map of nature. Our subjective idiographic point of view is different. It is >>> represented by the iQuad Coin. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thus, my reply to the article is to agree that it makes an important >>> point, but it is laughable that (a) we can just stop using the terms and >>> (b) that words like cognitive, psychiatric and psychological are fine even >>> though mind and mental are hopeless. What is needed is a proper descriptive >>> metaphysical system that is in accordance with natural science ontology >>> that affords us clarity about the various domains of the mental and the >>> ways they emerged and interface. >>> >>> >>> >>> This essay is mental in the sense that it is an example of Mind3b >>> behavior that operates at the Cultural Person plane of existence, and >>> functions to network propositions together to legitimize a version of is >>> and ought. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Gregg >>> >>> >>> >>> ___________________________________________ >>> >>> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org_&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=ywgw17zEPT_wmxQDe66d7zf_0QsYW5reJ9iAO2l6pP8&s=3dLFwb0W2EeJVWQHSnxyeygVOmknJGnuaNTPaI-CY4Y&e= >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=cT8vjCLjfWzIQhdHcf_ts2FMRAdbg86nXWakKiF5Mt0&s=i2h9k_9QumEMroMJPu99gY019PxyRTPcwqSIjIIoeI8&e=> >>> >>> >>> ############################ >>> >>> 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 > -- -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