As science grows, it is a practical inevitability that philosophy will go out the window. Science will take off from where natural philosophy begun
its thinking. But eventually, the excesses, extremes, and pretentions of philosophy will have to bow to the power of science.
Why do I say this? Because its obvious? True? Practically too enticing? It's like being offered the chance to feel good all the time, and at the same
time, not need to feel the need to act against the interests of others - since by now, science will have made you not only uninterested in being mean
or cruel or selfish, but you would actually enjoy
being a kind and caring person.
Nothing too extreme, of course, because science helps us realize that even our self is an Other to our observing consciousness. People who live the
'fast life' don't notice - and can't: the states they are identified with prohibit accurate understanding of the information they relate with.
These three states - pride, compassion, and shame, are correlated with states of self-experience and the 'temporal quality' they have for us.
With feeings of pride, the flow of experience speeds up. Temporality is 'extended', and perceptual consciousness and cognition happen in fast and
decisive ways. As social communication, there is no more coherent and enlivening a vector than the experience of pride. However, it is prone to
inflation, exagerration, and and excess - and so largely disturbs ones ability to acquire accurate information. That said, it is termed the 'species
attractor', because all human biological processes could be said to be acutely sensitive to the 'need to be socially enlivened', which more or less
entails the process of 'being known' and 'recognized' as something you value (itself determined by the environment) at a metacognitive level (which is
the 'panoramic pattern' of your brains emotion regulation processes (this is what we call a 'personality')).
The above picture speaks to the process of interaction itself. In a basic sense, our identity states constitute the 'height' of our biosemiosis. We
seek to connect, above all, with people who embody cues that correlate with past self-with-other identity structures, because it is through these
identity states (superordinate structures) that we experience meaning, and therefore, the enlivenment and positive feeling we are always unconsciously
Next, comes shame. If in an interaction, the person your with is giving you negative body language, the brain-mind experiences these 'asymmetrical'
interactions as a loss of power, and therefore, as producing in the "done to" (as opposed to the 'doer') feelings of shame. As we know, humans despise
this feeling, which is why anger appears even if we don't detect the experience of shame.
This is whats called an 'unconscious affect': the
logically required motivator
which seeks to 're-right' the deflating experience of weakness, worthlessness, and self-hatred.
Describing shame as an 'environmental selector' is also very true, because it is shame-interactions from the beginning of life which instructs the
early forming brain (via the emergent self) how to self-organize itself when the cuea associated with a past shame interaction are recognized, and so
instead of allowing shame to express itself (which is both socially and metabolically exhausting) the self pre-empts the weakness by mounting an
Shame slows down consciousness because it is fundamentally based in the inhibitory activity of the parasympathetic nervous system. Within the body
proper, the musculature, especially the neck and the face, curls inwards, as catching the eye of a person watching you experience shame adds to the
effect, and creates a 'shame of feeling shame' effect.
Shame, on the hand, really does provide a useful vantage point for observing the effects of external events on self-organization. It is because of
shame that we know that we are fundamentally limited, and we know this because we knows its because we are a social-creature: a creature which
needs other humans to work properly
Some people entertain the sad delusion that they 'operate by different laws', even though they have a human body, a human nervous system, which more
or less means you follow the same geometrodynamical laws - the same universal rules of energy transformation apply to all organisms, and when the
organisms are members of the same species, they are able to symbiotically 'use' one another to improve the coherence of their own functioning.
We use one another; of course we do. But that doesn't mean the way we use one another isn't based in the ethic of love; nor does it mean we don't
also value the needs and experiences of others.
It is inevitably both, which means, when a person decides to live a life of total
self-abnegation, they are deluding themselves as to the phenomenological - and brain - conditions that make the human as a much as an 'other' to
itself as the other person is an Other.
It is through compassion, a controlled and fundamentally 'accepting' awareness that we are able to recognize both sides - the other in ourselves and
the other in the world. We don't react reactively, or recklessly identify with the feeling state which emerges within us. Mindfulness is always
questioning, always wondering, always amused, you could say, with the way the body can trick the mind into accepting perceptions that, through the
translation of the minds anthropocentric obsessions, becomes mired, for instance, in metaphysical ruminations that are, to say the least, both
histrionic and romantic.
I can see such 'hysteria' in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism - and for good reason, they've all emerged from the same conditions, the same
societal constraints, and landed upon a common strategy - in believing and behaving - to regulate their affective states.
If one is to be truthful - and to be truthful requires immense education and many thousands of hours of self-observation - these 4 religions at the
orthodox level are pretentious, haughty, self-obsessed, judgemental, and if one is to be absolutely concise: excessive.
All these religions share mystical traditions which are and appear profoundly disembodied - that is, based in a psychobiological organization split by
the experience of developmental trauma.
To be disembodied, and to reason and make assertions from a disembodied state, is to fail to acknowledge the interpersonal origin of dismebodied
Although the Hebrew bible appears to emphasize, at times, interpersonal dynamics (especially in the opening chapters of Genesis),
and Jesus, in the Gospels, sets out the fact of projection, or externalizing your self-structure into another, while denying it, these religions are
more or less disastrously uninterested in how things become the way they are.
Perhaps the sanity of the argument, popularized by Aristotle and
his followers, and developed further during the middle ages, awaited to be evolved; but more or less, it is the noxious influence of mysticism and
the overpowering emotional experiences they produce in people with a history of trauma, as well as the psycholinguistic interpretative structure
applied to such experiences,
that seems to render people with problematic social histories into fetishizers of traumatic affect, and into
edit on 14-4-2018 by Astrocyte because: (no reason given)