No need to apologize for your response. I look forward to detailed criticism of what I write. I can’t get better without it.
My highest concern is your response to the piece is that it is riddled with grammatical errors. I take the craft of writing quite seriously. So I am interested in the grammatical errors you found. I do leave typos in from time to time — as I’m not looking to win any Pulitzers here. But I work diligently to avoid grammatical errors. They irk me when I see them in others’ work.
If you have the time, might you be able to provide some examples of grammatical errors?
I’m a little less interested in the other issue you bring up (though still interested): my lack of coherence and logic. I perceive that to be a separate issue from your criticism that my layout of our attention is not how our thought process work (those are two separate criticisms). What about my piece was illogical? Do you mean it was constructed out of arguments that are invalid, unsound, or both? As someone trained in academic philosophy, I also take that kind of stuff quite seriously — so I want to make sure I work on any arguments that are invalid — and address the ones that are unsound.
Lastly, you are certainly in good company for saying that the 4 modes of attention are not all there is. There are varying models for attention in the literature — both psychological and neurological literature. Perhaps I didn’t make it clear enough that (a) this is but one model that has been offered up in the literature and (b) I find that this model holds water when I relate it to my experience.
If you’ve read this far, thank you (and I hope there were no grammatical errors in my response!)