Hi Joan

Isaac Newton's Mathematical Principles of  Natural Philosophy had the following:

1. A Mathematical Method and Formalism [actually, Newton had developed and used calculus
but suppressed that approach in favor of a geometrical one in the book]

2. The first complete theory of dynamics. The various components may have been known to
others but Newton put them together in a non trivial way so as to make the theory cover
all the necessary aspects of  the range of phenomena it was intended to cover. Of course
any such statement is philosophically loaded and requires various caveats that I
will not go into here. However, it is true to say that whereas previous attempts had
been partial [and so required patchwork to apply] and specialized  [and could not be
considered general] Newton's theory included all the necessary elements [not merely by
chance, and although the time was ripe it was also Newton's insight that put the elements
together not as mere juxtapostion but in a logically correct synergy] and was of general
application; and so it immediately began to allow prediction and it laid the foundation
for three centuries of development and subsumption or more and more phenomena before it
began to show up its own limits of application.

3. A philosophy of the system; the resulting philosophy of space and time informed
generations of European philosophers [sympathetically and otherwise]; the philosophy of
nature defined a world view in which the mathematics of [1] and the dynamics of [2]
could be seen as complete.

So it was inevitable that advance beyond Newton's physical theory of dynamics would
involve revision of world view.

For the present purpose, I use the points made above as a pointer to the following
"moral": every complete theory contains its own map; history shows that not only do
maps change but so does the meaning of "map."

Primitively speaking, my first meaning of "map of mind" is: the regions
[metaphorically] and processes of the mind itself - not of the brain per se. On an
input-output model that would be input-processing-output, or
perception-processing-action. I did not specify what processing was; it is
cognition-emotion etc. but that is not neatly contained in processing and cuts across
perception-processing; however, I do believe "processing" to be more interactive than
the literature leads one to believe; I use input-output metaphorically because we
all know that "mind" is not a passive instrument; perception etc. in themselves are
complex, compound process; the boundary perception / internal processing is not clear
and distinct. How much more do I need to hedge? Anyway that's the map idea; the map is
the working out of the details. But the map has a shape. This includes the
elements of time; and the shape of the human environment [since we are sort of
focusing on human mind, but we might take up other minds in the same spirit] includes
good old NSPU. And it does not take too much effort to see that shape "mirrored" in the
shape or map of mind. Cognition relates more to the natural world; emotion has strong
ties to social interactions; motivation relates to, among other things, time...

Mind is not distinct from body but is conveniently and inconveniently so conceived.
Dynamics is the process by which being bootstraps itself up into BEING regardless
of whether the laces are tied carefully &or haphazardly, neatly &or with contortion.

So, although my first meaning is shape of mind itself, an implied equality [understood
in a process sense] is the shape of the world. And do not forget that the individual,
the mind are part of world. Therefore, mind also shapes itself.

If I mean, by map of mind, that "the world is mapped onto mind", then as, at least
a small part of that mapping, I would mean also the shape of mind itself. This is an
important though not very profound point; but its systematic neglect may lead to
profoundly bad consequences.

Did I answer your question?

Anil