Human Beings evolved to become "detectors" of one anothers phenomenology. To possess a mind means to possess a detector for the other. The other is
already in you, as your very capacity to represent objects to yourself. Your "self" is an impossible reality without the pre-existence of an
adaptation to know the intentionality of the other. This 1st axiom may be called "Shared-Intentionality", which in terms of systems dynamics would
be referred to as a "attractor". We are genetically evolved for the other. To spurn the other, as will be shown, is to curse yourself with
depression and cynicism
To have a mind you simply need a nervous system. We can call this basic "episodic awareness". Snakes, beetles, crocodiles and finches have a
representation of their world mediated by their sense organs and organized for perception. But to have a mind that is more than simply input-output
processing, you need to have first developed a large enough nervous system, and you need to have expanded upon this nervous system by becoming
inter-included within the organizational systems of developing conspecifics. This higher level, which has been associated with the limbic system by
the triune brain framework, is essentially an attempt to explain the existence of "higher level processing" that isn't found in cold-blooded
creatures like reptiles. Social processes, or existing with others, paradoxically involves "needing them" to adequately meet your normal homeostatic
organization. Social processes aren't easily or properly explained by Darwinian randomness because it really does seem as if the "social"
necessitates more neural resources to process cues and features in the behavior of the other, all, were told, to enhance survival. Even if this is so,
it is rather odd how much social organisms depend on an emotional closeness and affective relatedness with others of their species, particularly their
parents and siblings.
These two baboons were captured hugging one another after a lion attack that killed a group member.
It's also been argued by some evolutionary biologists that attachment evolved from the need to maintain warmth, as demonstrated by these huddling
Warmth -> Attachment -> Love. This seems to be the evolutionary progression in social evolution, from those which huddle primarily for warmth yet
presumably experience positive affects, to those who attach yet not deep enough or long to progress further, and finally, in the line of hominids, the
relaxation of threat-based emotions, and the discovery of fire - and the massive cultural transformation it afforded - slowly brings about the
evolution of cognitive perceptual systems that can track their own functioning.
Axiom 2: mind is based upon sympathetic affects. Although disputes do occur in all primates, and obviously in human beings, neither primates nor
humans can tolerate disconnection from other humans for very long. Human beings in particular are made especially vulnerable if they no longer find
themselves affectively related to other people.
This is going to be difficult to unpack.
Because sympathetic emotions underlie the evolution of consciousness (with nighttime fire sessions around eating and communicating being a
paradigmatic situation in our evolution) this thing we call "mind" - which happens to be physically embodied as our brain - doesn't function well
and begins to fall apart when it loses its sense of relatedness to other people.
How this can come about is of course enormously complex, as the brain is always "resetting" itself, and the human mind always entraining itself -
hypnotizing itself - with it's own internal cogitation and commentary on the world, so of course it would be impossible, barring an atlas shrug sized
book, to explore all the possible details. Nevertheless, any depressed human, I aver, has unconsciously (un-knowingly) put himself in such a situation
because of the way negative social affects (shame, guilt) compel compensating actions.
People need to realize that we do not merely see other
faces and other people in our day to day life; we also recreate the implicit meanings
in the actions we observe in other people. It's as if
seeing is like a .rar file; condensed, packed. Only later on, when we come to perceive or see things in a certain way, does it become apparent that
within the .rar file of our gestalt perception is the psychodynamic logic that applies across the human condition, and so, since we see actions, we
also unconsciously internalize the affective meaning of all actions, because many actions, if we only seek to understand them, are defensive in
The only way to see defensiveness (or dissociation) is to accept the principle that all people fundamentally want the positive evaluation of other
people. It is not natural, normal, or plausible, for someone to possess a human brain (with all it's internal complexity - and homology) and claim to
be organized in a way that is different from others. If you accept evolution as well as the 2nd law of thermodynamics, you will also need to accept
the dynamical nature of human phenomenology - it's up and downs, and if pride is recognized as a "thing I really like feeling" and shame accepted
as a "thing I hate experiencing", we can therefore recognize that human beings, when insensitive to one another's phenomenological experience,
provoke feelings of self-experience (shame) that then generates a feeling of hatred.
Now, looking at society today, is it not obvious that were graced everywhere we look by people who respond to other people in terms of just such a
dynamic: person A says T that implies x; person B's amygdala hears T but detects x and so stimulates defensive reaction y. Defensive reaction y is
cloaked behind statement p.
People are implicitly aware of what they're feeling, and feeling "less than another" is an ever-present possibility when we are with other people,
particularly people we don't enjoy being around. An unconscious cognitive comparison towards some cultural value is always happening within us.
Indeed, thought occurs with this as a background referent. How we know the world is thoroughly a function of environmental imprinting.
Depression is a curse and cynicism is a scourge. They exist because the minds who feel this way possess beliefs - cognitions - which constrain the
flow of what we can call good feeling. Remember: Axiom 1 and 2 explain what mind is; and depression is nothing other than the withdrawal of mind from
reality. Humans NEED ONE ANOTHER.
Cynicism is a prideful response to ones own tendency towards depressiveness. It's a trap. A no-mans land. Depression and suffering awaits the person
who can't keep himself from cynical thinking.
Indeed, one psychologist even suggested that suicidality might be a social correlate of apoptosis in cells. When a person kills themselves, they are
fundamentally hoping for intervention. They're murderous self-ideation depends on their implicit distance from others - something they enforce with
their prideful self-delusions about "not needing others". And yet, is it not true that the fantasy of a person tends to go towards what others will
think when they die?