This post will condense much of my research into a few figures. Follow closely!
The semiosphere is where our human awareness emerges. Before animals came around there was the chaos of the early Hadean period of the Earth. During
this time period, the heavy and dense elements form the inside of the planet towards the surface (lithosphere), where lighter elements like hydrogen
and oxygen self-organize into H20 - and there's a lot of it - and so, lots of liquid water. Although the figure doesn't properly represent this fact
(I need to fix that!) the lithosphere is first, the hydrosphere is second, and the atmosphere is third, since this is the chronological, as well as
the physical-dynamical ordering that actually occurred.
Then, the biosphere emerges as a "3rd" between the hydrosphere (water) and the lithosphere, with practically little to no input (initially) from
atmospheric inputs (i.e. either light or atmospherically sources elements). This is the major theory of the biological sciences today, which sees the
first life forms growing within the nano-sized pores of the majestic looking hydrothermal alkaline vents, which provided the iron, carbon, and
magnesium, plus, because they are non-volcanic, they operate at more realistic intensities conducive to the formation and regulation of life's
Eventually, the semiosphere arises, which means the "meaning-sphere". To make sense of meaning, you need a realistic idea of how meaning operates in
human brain-minds. Such a theory, or perspective, can be seen in the following diagram.
Here, you see three emotions. I call them fun, care, and awe.
It's important not to take for granted what these ideas ultimately signify - as this is the intellectual blight of our time period: taking what is
implicit or insufficiently explained for granted, and just going along with what is already popular/liked by the group we exist amongst. This is not
The little arrows in the diagram refer to where or how certain affects are controlled. This means care mediates between states of awe and states of
fun. Indeed, we all utilize/function in these ways, yet it has yet (so far as I know) to be explained in a scientifically satisfactory way.
Play, or fun, speaks to a qualia of "being amused" which can first be seen in fish such as cichlids. These fish blow bubbles and seems to 'play'
with them, inasmuch as the behavior seems to have no purpose, biologists consider these sorts of behaviors as a precursor to the formation of more
explicit forms of play in higher organisms.
The biologist and ethologist Gordon Burghardt sees this first emergence of play as related to a state he calls "metabolic surplus", and indeed,
that's how it should be understood: the cellular "effusion" of metabolic surplus becomes more and more expressed in a seemingly artistic way by
animals which play. Play is the rudimentary core of awareness, and indeed, the quality of 'volition' seems almost instinctively directed with the
qualia of play, or wanting to 'amuse' the self by pursuing whatever "catches your fancy".
What I'm describing here is a "phylogenetic" understanding, or evolutionary analysis of the development of functions and capacities in organisms.
But there is not necessarily any sense of "which comes first" between care and play, as they both seem to emerge and exist in the same organisms at
different times, although, as studies of certain fish and reptiles (like Komodo dragon) indicate, one could tentatively claim that play appears first
before attachment (care) based affection emerges.
Care, however, does emerge very strongly along the mammalian and avian lines, achieving very deep expression in certain groups - such as primates,
whales, and elephants. It is important that people understand that it is not reasonable to talk about human cognition without thinking about the
larger interpersonal context which cognition operates within; ethological analysis of elephants - who don't speak - nevertheless reveals a mind that
is exquisitely attuned to micro-cues in the behavior of other elephants, which goes to show dissociative and idealistic human researchers typically
are when they consider the way elephant minds operate; since we are languaging beings, we idiotically define awareness and meaning through the
semiotic lens which we usually create meaning: we act as if our own bodies aren't "languaging" with one another. It reveals nothing more than the
truth that we do not value that sort of languaging,
even though it is more real, and the actual historical basis for our very thinking and
In anycase, care is everywhere in our experience; I for instance "care" to write this piece. I care to smack someone in the face if I'm angry; care
is implicit in any act of volition, or expression of agency, because the self is superordinately "caring" for something it needs to express. Animals
do not have this quality of being superordinately "involved" with their immediate responses, as there is no communicative mechanism or technology to
abstract away from the body. Language - and technology - allows humans to partly abstract from the body - but it has grown beyond control and become a
Frankenstein like function; indeed, linguists are some of the most deranged/damaged minds when it comes to speculating as to what is real.
Finally, awe is obviously related to seeing the object in a much higher way - with reference to the observing self in its act of being a finite being
with a massive, seemingly infinite world, and being able to experience a strange sense of wonder and unity with the object interacted with. The object
- or the thing which inspires awe/wonder - puts the cognizing brain-mind-body into a structural resonance with the archetypal "ideal form" of the
object, which is the "core" of the divine mind.
Things are a little different when awe - or enchantment - is the vector by which the human knows the world around it. Yet, it is polarized. Notice how
todays world has people in it who are polarized to one side of the affective spectrum of interactional awareness: mystics are "in awe" from the
perspective of the absolute - and in the process, "detach" from any other modes of being or relating to others. Conversely, there are those
power-obsessed individuals who cling only to the superficial play and fun and amusement of surface feelings. It's easy and 'safe' to not care - but
the other, in fact, still absorbs YOUR unresolved baggage, which is a semiotic issue that needs to be resolved.
Care, then, mediates between top and down; it relaxes and controls the absolutist "mystic" tendencies which turns away from the significance and
meaning of a world that exists. Conversely, the "trickster" violates the truths which structure and control reality, and so, shows absolutely no
respect/awe for the very processes by which his own awareness and capacities unfold. It's deranged, unreasonable, and something every person who
lives this way will one day woe.
Finally, lets imagine how these "forms of interactive being" operate within our day to day lives.