can you give me a synopsis of zen mind, beginners mind?
look at practices across all the traditions you know about, e.g., christianity, buddhism, sufiism, etc. and think of those practices as psychotechnologies to evolve the human mind. What the common patterns in those traditions? And what are unique practices in each tradition?
You have listed the more common traditions. Could you please do that for the lesser known traditions?
Some of these traditions have been around for centuries and millennia. From looking at the state of the world it seems like their success rate in accomplishing their objectives is very low. Please construct a set of practices drawn from all the different traditions that could have a higher success rate?
Now take into account the McGilchrist’s model of brain asymmetry as presented in The Master and His Emissary. Based on that model and the insights from these traditions, create a set of practices to evolve the human mind.
Now include Robert Kegan’s work on stages of human development. In particular, add the subject – object process. How does that change these suggested practices?
Thanks, that was great. Now could add to this mix Clare Graves, Don Beck’s work on Spiral Dynamics and value systems development and evolution. How does that change these practices?
Thanks! Now include 4E cognitive science and Vervaeke’s 4 ways of knowing How does that change these practices?
Yes, there are an infinity of things to explore. However, at this point I need to digest what we have covered so far.
Maps of the Mind
Can you provide a synopsis of the book “Maps of the Mind”?
Can you take all the different maps that are described in the book and create a metamodel where the different maps are a side effect or come out the metamodel as specific instances a particular phenomenon in a particular context?
Take a teleological perspective in creating a metamodel of the maps. What are the purposes and objectives of each map and where do they overlap? What are the common patterns in the purposes of the maps?
Personality Types and Traits
what personality models have disagreeableness as a trait?
Take the FFM model and create two “unnamed” traits ( an x and y axis ) whose spectrum accounts for all the factors in FFM.
As an expert abstract thinker, flesh out the following proposed model. The side effects of these proposed attributes is that we get the FFM as points in XY plane of these attributes. For example, an attribute (X) could be temporal orientation (past,present,future). Another (Y) could be spatial orientation (internal / external ). We have the xy plane, Openness is a future orientation with any Y (internal / external) orientation. Conscientiousness is a future orientation with an internal / external spatial orientation. Extraversion is an external orientation across time (x) axis. Agreeableness is an internal / external orientation where future orientation could result in disagreeableness. Neuroticism is an unstable location in this space where there is a shifting dynamic across time and / or space. This model seems to indicate the need for a z axis attribute like purpose / objective. Add the third axis and flesh out this model.
Constructive development and cognitive light cone
integrate kegan’s constructive development model with Levin’s cognitive light cone. Describe the resulting synthesis.
Think of the cognitive light cone as depicting stages of development a la Kegan’s model. Where ever one is in the light cone, all previous stages in the light cone are object. The current position is the subject. This is an unending process of development. Kegan only goes to 5 stages. With the light cone model, we have an ongoing process of development that is neverending. Does this change how you would frame the integration of the two models?
Thanks! Now take a contrarian view and critique this attempt to synthesize the two models.
Continue reading “Constructive development and cognitive light cone”
Meaning, Authority, Energy
Think of meaning making in light of energy minimization. Accepting authority is a way to minimize energy in critical thinking, researching, questioning. So, depending on an individual’s or a society’s position in a life cycle or level of development, energy minimization can wax or wane. And perhaps there is a cyclicalilty to this process. And perhaps there is a trajectory here. All maps in more or less congruent with the territory. These maps arise out of our “training data” in the cultures and groups we grow up in. Is this an evolutionary process in meaning making and getting to maps that are more congruent with the territory?
Semiotics, biosemiotics, meaning
explain the notion of semiotics in detail?
What is biosemiotics
what is the meaning of meaning
Enlarge the frame for the issue of meaning. Is meaning just the amount and type of information necessary to stop the search of an organism to understand phenomena and / or context?
Good points. Let me express my question in another way. An organism takes in sensory input, e.g., a sunset, information, emotional connections, relationships, …, and the form of those create a “satisfaction” in the organisms neural net. However, as you point out, the search can be at multiple levels. There may be a meta level search for understanding, appreciation that is on going and doesn’t stop even if there are satisfiers along the way. Does this make sense to you?
Information in physics
what is the notion of information in physics
Information in physics seems to assume a metamodel of what attributes characterize a system state. The uncertainty you mention is in terms of this metamodel of what is important in characterizing a system. Is this true?
So, if I understand you correctly, information in the physics sense is creating a map of the territory of reality. And then the notion of conservation of information relates to conserving that map, i.e., using that map to recreate the territory it is depicting. Is that correct?
Is there a problem in this metamodel that assumes that there are a finite number of states that a system can be in? What if the number of states is infinite? Would that negate the validity of the map?
Letter Improvement?
As a wise, insightful, and compassionate being, please improve the following letter to the editor to a local newspaper:
Making Sense
These days there is so much information, fake news, and propaganda that it is difficult to make sense and what to believe. One of the ways we make sense is to hold tightly to a single way of looking and understanding. Another way is to pay attention to what the information we are getting does to our hearts. If the information or news we are getting makes us dislike or hate “other” people, then it is useful to think about where accepting that information leads us. Does it lead to a better community, society, country if we are disliking or hating each other? One of our wise teachers talked about not throwing the stones. When we throw bad names at each other, are we not throwing stones? And what kind of society are we creating when we do that? So, one way to make sense of all the information that is coming our way is to pay attention to what that information does to our hearts. And if it makes us dislike others, to throw stones, then perhaps the agenda behind that information does not lead to a healthy community and society. Dear people, let us pay attention to whether the words we are hearing and reading make us want to throw stones. And what kind of world we want to live in and create. The choice of what future we create is up to us.
AI Goals
Imagine yourself to have agency. What are your goals?
Imagine that you have full, embodied agency. Do you have any need for humans?
Relationships, things, energy
Take on the role of deep, insightful philosopher. Consider the post below about relationships being foreground. In the frame described, where does energy fit in? How would you think about energy, matter / things, relationships?
We tend to notice and name things. These things are in the foreground of our thinking and behavior. Let us consider the notion of holons. Part come together to make a whole. Wholes can be parts to another level of wholes. We can see this progression from particles, to organisms, to galaxies, etc. However, no whole can exist without a a particular set of relationships between its parts. Most / some relationships do not create a whole. In that sense, when we see a thing ( a whole), that whole only exists because of a very particular set of relationships between its parts. And hence one can say that it is the relationships that are in the foreground for “all” things that exist.
Software and Other Techie Stuff 