posted on May, 14 2016 @ 01:40 AM
I'm very curious about us human beings, homo sapiens, sapiens.
In my studies, and in my unusual experiences, I have been coming closer and closer to a theoretical representational knowledge of human experience.
It hasn't been easy. The problem is that psychology for the last 100 years has been mimicking the context is developed within: capitalism. Capitalism
impresses upon its inhabitants a specific transactive logic surrounding surpluses and deficits. The mind was conceived in this background, so it is
not at all surprising that the world we have today, and the world Freud and later medical psychiatry has brought into existence, is extraordinarily
dissociated from what really makes and shapes human nature.
Without my photoshop, I ask that you use your imagination in this following description. You should notice and see in yourself the very logic I
describe. It should also be mentioned that the external form of an animal expresses an internal logic; the phenomenology of conspecifics (members of
the same species) is isomorphic - which means "the same". Of course, we all have different histories, which means we experience the world
differently, but nevertheless are equally shaped by the parameters set by our complex biology. Say what you will and believe what you will -
spiritually, or philosophically: your 86 billion neurons in your brain, 16 billion in your cortex and 69 billion in your cerebellum, with another
billion in between (Herculano-Houzel 2016), creates your experience of being. Because of this, there ARE LAWS that rule human perception, experience
and behavior. An intelligent and enlightened science works towards uncovering these principles so that we can better educate the minds of tomorrow to
know how it is they know; and to recognize in themselves the way the exigencies of selfhood act upon their knowledge.
Principle # 1: this is a big one, especially for us anthropomorphizing humans. Feeling is not merely feeling, but a form of knowledge about the
world. It's the disastrous insistence on language and the disneyfication of our perception of animals that helps reify our "commonsense" idea
that knowledge exists in language. Only creates that can know and think conceptually, are conscious. This of course is patently wrong. The work
of the neuroscientists Antonio Damasio, Bud Craig, Walter Freeman and the cognitive scientists George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, have put to rest this
notion that consciousness equals thought. It is simply not true: the deepest layer of our being is embodied feeling. And within this core self lies
not random emotions, but the history of our personal experiences and the experiences of our ancestors. Thus, next time you see a dog, do not
anthropormphize it - as tempting as it is to do. Try noticing how the dog knows: such as through rubbing its head against you when they want affection
or attention. Or, the converse: you can notice how confusing words are to them. Humans make the error of imagining that words associated with
consequences means the animals "know" or plan - again, represent to themselves in concept - how to be. But this is ridiculous nonsense: we too know
without representing to ourselves how we know. Just simply watch your bodily reactions in a social context and notice how your body "knows" what
certain consequences to certain actions are.
Every brain reflects and mirrors its environment. It embodies the ecology of it's relations. Thus, with Andreas Weber (see his newly released book
"The Biology of Wonder", for an idea of what the future of science will look like) I see organisms as the force of life - what Weber identifies with
feelings (that are purposeful) - as meaning-making in terms of the here and now as well as the adjacent possible.
Principle # 2: All organisms, not just humans, embody in their brain the whole of their ecological relations. This means the environment as well as
the adaptive response exist in the brain as "potentials" waiting to be realized.
Now, for humans:
1) Affects experienced during perception provide knowledge of social-power. But social power seems to be predicated on what self's need. Why
does a butterfly know other butterflies, or a whale other whales? This is so taken-for granted in biology, yet it appears that the "self" of a
creature knows its self by sensing in the outer structure of a similar organism a similar internal structure. Thus, the external "expresses" or
symbolizes the internal, hence, all organisms that are externally identical spend their time together
2) The Motivation to Act derives from affects experienced in the past. This means that motivation is directly related to how you've
experienced the world in your endless "openness" to the social world. An important factor here is the quality of the relations you've experienced,
either directly or indirectly. If your self has been consistently honored and properly known by the other, positive affects will be released, and thus
a robust sense of self will be generated. However, most people aren't fortunate enough to have self-aware caregivers. Furthermore, in a capitalist
society, it seems the vast majority of people regularly encounter other people who from birth on have developed around people consistently preoccupied
with their own interests, and so, develop in ways similar to the people they've related with.
But why? Why do affects experienced during perception become the basis for motivation? Because we humans are tied into one another at the affective
3) The cognitive psychologist Merlin Donald posits 3 stages in the evolution of Humans: the episodic, mimetic and mythic. Imagine three threads, one
blue, the second green and the last one red, corresponding to the 3 levels. In all creatures, a thread runs through them binding them together, such
that alone these creatures do not "make sense", because the inbuilt knowledge - behavior - they bring out in their actions requires the presence of
a conspecific on the other end to make the actions meaningful.
In humans, the episodic thread has become intertwined in the much larger and much more powerful "mimetic" thread. Later on, the mythic thread is
"tacked" on the mimetic thread as a commentary upon the experiences of an ever growing consciousness of - and memory of - the experiences of
The green thread (a specially chosen color) is the logic of this thread. Mimesis, or imitation, better termed "communicative musicality", is the
logic of this thread. Principle 1, 2 and 3 are all designed to explain the basic fact that mimesis can only exist if we are aware of one anothers
intentions or feelings: that is, if we intuitively 'know' one another's mental situations. This is what "affects experienced during perception"
and "motivation to act" derive from. But what sort of affects and how do these motivations become organized? Around what principle?
4) The Self is real enough that it is causally organizing human behavior. Between affects experienced during perception and motivation to act lies
what I call "standards and judgements". Standards and judgements are the internal, immediately known "knowledges" that are genetically built into
our brain; they are not symbolic in the usual sense, but in the embodied sense that we can tell through an action what one party feels about another
party: that is, we learn something about their intentionality as well as their "power" in the relationship.