Norman K. McPhail wrote:
> Don Mikulecky wrote:
> >
> > Don Mikulecky asks:
> >
> > Norman K. McPhail wrote:
> >
> > > Mario Vaneechoutte wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Norman K. McPhail wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Mario:
> > > > >
> > > > > Here is the correct address for Don's article.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://views.vcu.edu/~mikuleck/rev.htm
> > > > >
> > > > > You may want to send the whole text of your excellent article
entitled:
> > > > > EXPERIENCE, AWARENESS AND CONSCIOUSNESS via e-mail to the entire
list.
> > > > > I found it very informative and interesting.
> > > > >
> > > > > Norm
> > > >
> > > > Dear Norman,
> > > >
> > > > Thank you very much for your enthusiastic response. Actually I have
> > > > submitted this article to J. Consciousness Studies and after waiting
more
> > > > than 6 months I was informed, two weeks ago, that it was not really
suited
> > > > for publication. I can resubmit, but I am not really invited to do so,
and
> > > > resubmission is not ensurance for acceptance. (Anthony Freeman is the
> > > > editor).
> >
> > Is Jonathan Shear no longer editor? I am on good terms with him and would
be
> > happy to intercede if that might help?
>
> I think Shear oversees several journals. I've not had any contact with
> them since last fall, but so far as I know he is still around.
>
> > >
> > >
> > > I also had an article rejected by JCS. Anthony is a good guy and a good
> > > editor. However they obviously like articles that don't say that
> > > consciousness is silly and easy to figure out. Your article has some
> > > truly remarkable insights that in some ways are identical to my ideas
> > > about how our brains work. You may want to read my article. Here is
> > > the address: http://204.94.86.93/jcsart.html
> > >
> > > > I first decided not to publish it any longer, but then, a few days after
I
> > > > was informed about rejection, the new issue of JCS had as the keynote
> paper
> > > > something of Sheets-Johnstone. Although I do not disagree with her claim
> > > > that 'the conscious was not preceded by unconsciousness', I thought that
I
> > > > had written all she had to say so much better.
> > >
> > > I have not read this article, but it is hard for me to imagine that it
> > > would make much sense based on your description.
> > >
> > > > So, I still would like it to have published, since I worked a long time
on
> > > > it (intermittently for more than a year: I never find time to work
> > > > seriously on this philosophy stuff and sometimes I don't do a thing
about
> > > > it for more than a month: family, garden, bacteriology, social life
> > > > (although this is kept to a minimum), being too tired to concentrate on
> it,
> > > > having forgotten where I was or where I left the latest version, ...).
> > >
> > > I know the problems only too well. If you like, I will be happy to go
> > > through it with you sentence by sentence.
> > >
> > > > So, what if I put it on the net? Can I still submit it?
> > >
> > > Yes!
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I will read Mickulecky's article. I have done so before, but only the
> first
> > > > few pages, due to the fact I find it rather complicated and due to so
many
> > > > interesting things to read and so many other things to do.
> > >
> > > I understand. But it is worth it. What I have in mind is perhaps a
> > > combination of Don's ideas, yours and mine.
> > >
> >
> > wow.....let's go!!!!!!
>
> JCS may not want to print what we can say because I think it will blow
> the lid off the whole consciousness black box. Regardless, with your
> brains and Mario's good looks, how can we lose? I think that the main
> problem we face is writing this out in such a way that it is both easily
> understood by everyone and at the same time has enough starch in it to
> get past the peer reviewers.
>
> This will not be easy to accomplish. Still, I am convinced that we have
> the models, the approach and enough facts to wake up a lot of sleepy
> philisophers and scientists. At the very least it will be a lot of fun
> trying.
>
> I may be wrong, but I think that a lot of people have their eye on this
> consciousness mess because they intuitively sense that unraveling it
> will help take us beyond a lot of the fruitless wrangling now going on.
> What's more, I am convinced that this is the way to bridge the gaps
> between the humanities and the sciences. But it is not some PR or
> political campaign designed to change peoples minds. The bridging
> effect is a natural product of the larger understandings and insights
> that come from a flexible mapping and modeling approach.
>
> This approach uses the thought modes that are appropriate to dealing
> with and understanding the nature of the arenas under consideration. It
> is a radical shift away from the assumption that one thought mode,
> methodology and logic system must fit all subjects. See if you don't
> think there is a way to combine how each of us look at this elephant
> into a better understanding and explanation. It embodies the very
> concept of using models that won't commute that we are talking about.
Norm,I am already experiencing a level of communication not seen for years!
With a
little hard work we can do even beter.
>
>
> > > I am leaving on
> > > > holidays now and will take it with me.
>
> Don, if Mario doesn't send his article out to you, let me know.
I have it and will read it with care!
> I have
> it and will try to e-mail it to you. It is a problem for me because I
> must break it into three parts. Also the html coding appears when I
> break it into three pieces.
>
> > > > I appreciate your role as moderator. Go on with it. Only, I won't take
> part
> > > > in it during the first following month.
> > > >
> > > Have a wonderful holiday.
> > >
best regards,
Don