And this may be a bit far out, but should still be (obviously) scientifically justified:

If attention engenders experience within the mind/imagination, …

Who is ‘apparent’ to whom? Parent…get it? 
Symbolic Reproduction…as we are words - we are the software of the cosmos and that software is the energy of the sun. 

Regarding the the transcendence of birth and death, as these are imaginary, or rather, the energy-charged thoughts or egos that are born and die all time in the bloodsport we call life. 

I read something somewhere about Taoism, with the philosopher reinterpreted as meaning the childish phrase  ‘who’s your daddy?’…and perhaps not ‘old boy’ as typically understood. 

Also, my father and I are one is another sort of man-child, only neither …or beyond the dual frame of the word. 

Lastly, since the word was in the beginning with God and was God, and the Word, in my imagination, is 2D…it’s a frame …one side life, the other death…….and ‘evil’ is ‘live’ spelled backwards (coincidence?)

And every imagined frame is, necessarily (I’m pretty sure it must be) a ‘timeframe’ …relativity comes to mind….

As the brain is about business, and my word is my bond, Christianity must therefore be one with (especially) Satanism….even the same thing (same difference anyway).

In the Bible ‘When Satan rises against Satan’…..it can only be two egos fighting in the soul, and/or outside the body (same differences  in the ‘timeframe’

Life is suffering because life is defined relative to death - as striving to attain something, whereas our ordinary state - the most real, is beyond life and death. 

The mathematical definition of a point, infinitesimal, omnipresent, without dimension, is where relativity ends. 

Attention is paid to engender experience.
Consciousness is ‘knowing with’ the form engendered (father and son - in spirit)
Awareness is beyond life and death. 

Any help keeping things in their proper context would be apprciated, as such inferences are a bit far out.

Wim Hof helps. 

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 of 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://aeon.co/essays/why-theres-no-such-thing-as-the-mind-and-nothing-is-mental

 

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).

 

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://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

--
-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