Has anyone here read books by Mike Hockey or Thomas Stark? Having read a bit from each, I can't shake the feeling that both of them seem profoundly
involved with an implicit other - a not otherwise named enemy which "deserves something" vis-a-vis those who realize that reality is all about
'intelligence' and 'logic'. Of course, it ultimately comes down to affect regulation and therefore morality. Some of us believe we are 'beyond
good and evil', while others believe there is a definite good and a definite bad in every situation we encounter in our living. The latter group
believes that the mind is organized around social processes, whereas the former group insists that the individual is more real than the social.
I have shown this diagram before, which deserves to be mentioned here to explain the hierarchical logic of the human body - in terms of brain
evolution through vertebrates, as well as brain development from birth onwards (the brain is only 1/3rd its adult weight at birth; its almost entirely
neuronal; almost no glia; therefore, no cortical connections).
The brain stem of the human brain is correlated to the level of 'interacting cells' which, being fundamentally cellular, is totally integrated with
the thermodynamically synced patterns of the natural environment around it.
The brainstem is a part of our brain that 'lies beyond' cognition. The human being cannot consciously interfere with the patterns of its bodily
homeostasis. Of course, it can screw them up; it can stay up late, eat bad foods, mistreat other people (sado-), mistreat the self (masochism), engage
in dangerous activity (crime)...But it cannot do these things and, more or less, shift itself back into a coherent, regulated state. The mind is an
of the way cellular energy is dissipated throughout the system of the human body.
What the brainstem always does is provide the basic inputs for the midbrain to translated and represent the body's homeostasis as 'feeling' states.
Feelings represent 'situations' - both of the body in its general functioning, and the social environment and the significance 'others' have come
to take on for you.
Feelings emerge from bodily patterns of energy processing. We cannot be alive - have a body which thermodynamically 'works' to keep us going - and
yet imagine (let alone claim) that you 'don't have feelings'. Being calm and relaxed, or 'feeling muted' in the feeling sense, may give one the
superficial impression that there are no feelings there; but of course, the very motivation for directing attention is itself a subtle form of
feeling; albeit, it is not embodied, and exists more as an 'intellectual interest' which, being mediated by subcortical mechanisms, is itself tied
in to homeostasis processes and hence, is functioning as part of a higher level cognitive regulation of the bodily self-in-the-world.
So, when you get that your feelings are a second-level representation of the 'object' of your body in interaction with other objects, you realize
you have no choice but to accept reality as it is, which is to say, accept the moral structure built into our organism by the dynamical synergies
between organisms, and in humans, the way this synergy become 'embodied' as our minds and the ways that it functions.
Psycholinguistic narratives exist to bridge the gap between our bodies. They are the third level representation of our self-consciously reflective,
social minds. It is from up here, in language, that Descartes and others with minds like Descartes hide from their conscience. The existential 'I'
emerges from the socially self-conscious I. The self which thinks and thinks it exists by virtue of its thinking (I think therefore I am) is
subsequent to the self which thinks because it is made to feel something caused by an Other.
The self has been made to feel as if it were something 'extraneous' to the body. Connections within the cingulate (smaller; for attachment), the
amygdala (smaller; threat detection) the hippocampus (smaller, for memory) and corpus collosum (smaller; communication between the hemispheres) are
different in people with sociopathy. In cognitively developed (highly educated) psychopaths, the brain is slightly larger in the dorsolateral areas,
and, since they also share deficiencies in the above stated areas, slightly smaller orbitofrontal, midbrain and interhemispheric connections.
Now, ontogenetically speaking (how development occurs) the formation of the sociopath would appear to be a sub-category of the avoidant-insecure
attachment style. The basis of this 'personality style' derives from early-life relational interactions with emotionally avoidant caregivers i.e.
caregivers which dissociate cues which imply feeling needs; by two years, the brain of an avoidant-personality will tend to come to self-organize in
ways that are 'contiguous' with the phenotypical shaping of their early nervous system; following this, chance and random 'shifts' in context will
either afford or deprive the personality of what it needs to progress in its development. If lucky, it'll meet certain people which can mediate the
formation of certain capacities - either neurological/personality-based (which is assimilated simply through social interaction) or 'professional'
i.e. in social status and positioning within the social hierarchy.
Fairly specific endpoints, or 'attractors' can emerge for the 'super' lucky types. Mysticism and occultism can exist side by side with a
determinative biopsychosocial metaphysics which, nevertheless, allows for the self-righting of love and compassion to 'fix' the self if it happens
to decouple itself from a coherent relationship with reality. If this fact means anything, it means that the self is very much a function of the
'biology of love', and using the self for selfish i.e. careless, punitive, cruel, ends, is itself a likely prelude to what you will one day have to
know yourself - whether that be via some 'reincarnation', or some afterlife hell, the logic of neurogenesis in humans, in situations where they are
dysregulated and needing to self-right, is always based in love - implying some superior power to this energy.
My feeling is, this universe is remarkably large and, very likely, completely beyond our capacity to completely comprehend. Buddhism, a region which
emerged at the highest altitude to which humans have settled, seems also to possess the sort of epistemological pragmatism needed to liberate human
beings from the various religious views which allow the mind to abstract from real life situations on the false premise that it 'derives' from some
'external' dimension and that its self is 'beyond' this world.
Without 'this world', there is no self. Without the situations and contexts which systematically construct us and give us a reason for living, there
is emptiness and nothingness. There is no room for incoherent utterances that 'sound nice' and 'feel good'. Vanity really exists; it really
disturbs cognitions, feelings and body. Fetishizing 'falsity', and yet experiencing a 'good affect', is most likely an emergent property of
socializing. Such antinomianism doesn't exist independently of social interactions and the fundamentally vitalistic character of their effect on the
mind. We feel good NOT because of some 'deity' that exists independently of us; we feel good because a particular value AFFIRMS a feeling
relationship I share with other human beings.