I would go as far as to argue that,, ostensibly, cognitive flexibility/shifting lenses can make all the difference in epistemology and ideas about ontology (vs ontic). 

On a mass scale or individual basis this is a true principle, when you aren't certain, then you have options, when you are certain (convinced that something has to be a certain way, rigid, inflexible, fused) then you only have the option or limited options you're so certain of. It opens up a tremendous amount of freedom and energy to move in a valued direction when we let go of expectations and very much so our sense of control, but we have to go against our own programmed modes of conditioned environment-response contingencies in order to effectively expand or make flexible those contingencies so that they are at least less contingent in general and one can adopt the neutral (nondual) attitude of "I don't mind," and "maybe." 

Although very difficult to do it is simple in that it is not complicated, anyone can do it which is the beauty of it as a mental technology to promote spontaneous yet value-based living that has nothing to do with explicit expectations without alternatives. 

This is a gross summary that ignores the reasons we become rigid to begin with, since that is an area we should be looking at as well (and a major focus of my unfinished works). Not sure the degree Gregg agrees with me as I tend to go pretty extreme in the not needing to know direction. I'll be posting this weekend on this exact subject and I can share on the listserv. 

Regards,

Nicholas G. Lattanzio, Psy.D.

On Tue, Dec 21, 2021, 7:07 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Thanks for these reflections.

 

I agree with Nik, here. Indeed, as a moment of convergent validity, I was talking to Bonnitta Roy about this, and she basically said she was oriented toward a very similar mode. That is, she wanted to cultivate the pure awareness mode and show people how to be grounded in being and then flexibly toggle back and forth between that and the self lens.

 

This adds to the idea that this is a broad, general and useful frame.


Best,
G

 

From: theory of knowledge society discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Nicholas Lattanzio
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2021 5:28 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: TOK PT blog on Two Streams of Consciousness

 

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.

You're spot on in application Ali. This is touching on the theoretical roots of acceptance and commitment therapy in terms of shifting lenses (being cognitively flexible) in order to optimize function and minimize unnecessary pain and suffering.

 

Cognitive flexibility would be one of the chief underlying constructs for a sort of trait or characteristic that represents the ability to switch between levels of consciousness.

 

 

 

Regards,

Nicholas G. Lattanzio, Psy.D.

 

On Mon, Dec 20, 2021, 3:45 PM Alexis Kenny <[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.

All,

 

This is a helpful blog, Gregg. Thanks for writing and sharing! Glad to see that it has generated some discussion here. 

 

Question! 

 

How would you (Gregg and/or others) describe "psychological flexibility" in relation to these two lenses? Or is this a concept that doesn't directly apply to consciousness? See attached for an ACT-based definition I just came across while completing some CEUs.

 

Warmly,

 

Ali

 

El dom, 19 dic 2021 a la(s) 04:38, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx ([log in to unmask]) escribió:

Nik,

 

  Many thanks for this note, friend. Just an FYI, I pulled this from Part II of the iQuad Coin blog series on medium. Here is the link to that one:

https://medium.com/unified-theory-of-knowledge/the-iquad-coin-part-ii-a4cf33848db9

 

In it, I delineate four epistemological lenses. Self, Pure Awareness, (Ontic) Reality, and Science (i.e., scientific onto-epistemology) as four “Human Identification Matrices” that are afforded by the Coin. (Yes, the spiritual ontological position is that Pure Awareness is all that there is, that is not the UTOK position, although I am not a foundationalist, but a “coherent correspondent pragmatist” so god only knows where this ends up 😊).

 

I was happy with how the iQuad blog series came together. Here is the architecture:

[log in to unmask]">

I think that this architecture does justice to the Coin. I just need to complete the last two or three blogs, which allow me to develop the “logos architecture” from the Henriques Equivalency into the Euler Identity into the Radical Mathematical Humanistic Equation and then finally the iQuad Path that led to the Coin in the first place.

 

When that is completed, we will show the Coin for what it is, which bridges human subjective experience with mathematical logic, and by virtue of its place in the UTOK frame, we can also then have our new map of Big History and scientific ontology via the ToK and our collective mythos framed by the Garden.

[log in to unmask]">

Best,

Gregg

 

 

 

From: theory of knowledge society discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Nicholas Lattanzio
Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2021 5:06 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: TOK PT blog on Two Streams of Consciousness

 

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.

YES YES YES THANK YOU GREGG!

 

This is awesome, you can't imagine how exhilarating it was for me to read that, and your reference to Mooji is much appreciated and shows respect to probably the most intact Advaitist lineage (dating back to Ramana Maharshi). One thing I would like to highlight about this is that although from the perspective of the self stream they are two separate streams, the pure awareness (the spiritualist's ontological ground of being) stream is all that there really is. 

 

Another way of thinking about this is consistent with an Advaitist framing of the phenomenon as an actor forgetting themselves in their act. We are all always the pure awareness stream, always, we cannot actually be anything else. However, as individualized focal points of awareness there is a tendency to forget the awareness in relation to its contents such that the epiphenomenal presence of "objects" that are "outside" of awareness becomes an inevitable belief (and eventually the desire for permanence-see J Krishnamurti). But we wouldn't be so confused about it if there were no contents to experience because there would be nothing to know and no one to know it, nothing can exist separate from awareness. This is the foundation of what I have regularly referred to as the Identity Crisis (my shifting the emphasis of JV's Meaning Crisis), and Nondual Empiricism, and further lies at the heart of any body-mind dilemma and reconciles the "apparent" differences between 1st and 3rd person empiricism. I could rant and rant on this for days because learning how to "live empirically" according to the principles of nondual empiricism is precisely the way we are going to get through this meta crisis.

 

Rob's Fundamental Shift is a powerful tool for framing and experientially realizing these life changing understandings, as is Mooji's Self-inquiry. In fact, most traditions in psychotherapy have their roots in these same concepts, as they were similarly discovered in early Western societies (e.g., Gnostics) and brought from the East (e.g., Alan Watts, CG Jung's trip to India). Brilliant article Gregg, I've been waiting for TOK to begin to integrate this and I am thrilled. I would love to contribute my expertise however possible, just let me know.

 


Regards,

 

Nicholas G. Lattanzio, Psy.D.

 

 

On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 1:50 PM michael kazanjian <[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.

Hi Gregg:

 

As I read the public and private self, there comes to mind the statement from Kluckhohn and Murray's Personality:

              "Every person is like everyone, like some others, like no one."    Reminds me of Hillel:  "If I am for myself alone, who am I; if I am not for myself, who will be for me?" 

 

Thanks,

Best,

Michael M. Kazanjian

On Saturday, December 18, 2021, 01:45:26 PM CST, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

 

 

Hi Folks,

  I put up this PT blog today on two streams of consciousness, the Self Stream (I am) and the Pure Awareness Stream (Am Is).

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/theory-knowledge/202112/two-streams-conscious-awareness

 

Special thanks to Rob Scott for his work and guidance in this area,
G

 

___________________________________________

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

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

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


 

--

Alexis (Ali) Kenny, PsyD, LP

Staff Psychologist

phone: 406.540.3411

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

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