posted on May, 11 2018 @ 08:03 PM
In being a human being, I am implicitly present to events which happen inside my mind, which, at the same time, feels like "me" "doing" the
Intentionality appears whenever we cognize. Perception, on the other hand, has more of a passive, pre-conscious quality to it, and so, is often
referred to as the "non-self" relative to the "self" of the cognizing mind.
Between these two cardinal poles of reality, human reality unfolds. But rarely - extremely rarely - does it dawn on human minds that the things they
do are generated from past interactions with real live others. Granted, there is what seems to be a 'unwitting' admission that you are the way you
are because of your history, but for some reason (which I will explain very soon), we don't emphasize it in our conversations, but rather superimpose
"stories" i.e. myths, upon the focal reality of 'what causes what', which is always being tallied by the right brain.
The left brain is the part that creates stories. Everything that actually occurs is based in symmetry dynamics with other human selves like yourself.
Thus, the right brain is the 'archive' of your relational history, whereas the left brain is the 'adaptive response' that your left brain seeks in
its consciousness of expectations, values and styles in the social world.
When we think about how experience is deposited into brain structure, we need to keep in mind that every .100 or so milliseconds are experience of the
world (and ourselves) is being updated, with meanings arising at imminent temporal scales (.150 and less), more 'conscious' temporal scales (.300
milliseconds) and narrative structures adapted to the exigencies of human conversation (integrating the small scale with the lengthy conversations we
The first level itself produces an impression (right brain) and an 'adaptive response' (left brain), so that the elements of each interaction are
lateralized to the proper hemisphere. The 'tuning' of the left hemisphere appears to be related to the immediate impact of a social situation on the
feelings we feel, and so the words we use - the stories we tell - have everything to do with what we implicitly believe would happen if we were to say
it. The right hemisphere houses the prediction - the result - and so, is always 'impelling' the left-hemisphere into a selection process that lands
upon the 'right' word, even if, in fact, this unconscious response is inaccurate and inefficient. However fundamental the body is to accurate
thinking, it's mindless stereotyping of immediate situations makes it stupid and unaware relative to the 'panoramic' vision of the conscious mind.
Yet, it is still the body - sometimes hated, but powerfully recognized as too important to ignore - which shapes the quality of our existence.
Here's an example for what I mean. The things we don't do - the things we avoid - are always about avoiding stress, and hence, avoiding what we feel
"threatens us" - whether or not it is objectively threatening.
I tend to avoid responding to threads because I have a hard time reading criticism and dealing with the anger it arouses. I do this - and I may tell
myself that I do it for other reasons (totally reflexively, some of which, such as time, are also valid) but I think it is far more objective and
accurate to relate this feeling to my history of interpersonal trauma, and so, to the conditioning of the various parts of my brain to experience any
sort of critcism or negativity as a "major threat". This 'major threat' response is something that was created in my actual past; through chronic
hyper and hypo arousal of my autonomic nervous system - in a context of interpersonal bullying - my brain enacted a 'self-defense' procedure whereby
the cognitive (self) states that usually seek social enlivenment (i.e. the neuroaffective systems of PLAY, SEEKING, CARE) and does it through goofy
and playful action, begins to experience any desire for action as a threat in itself. The traumatized mind responds to its own thoughts and
perceptions as if they were threatening animals. Quite logically, since we are metacognitively aware of ourselves in our acting with others, the
traumatized mind becomes more and more "tuned" to the 'right' (i.e. adaptive, strengthening social power) 'ways of being' in order to elicit the
effects that these 'ways of being' (cognitive mind) have on other humans. The cues of the other (passive) is precisely the unconscious generator of
the cognitive self's feeling of grandiosity.
What is so crazy about humans is how mean and arrogant we can be, even when the very energy and power you have derives from the effect of your actions
on others. If the response doesn't come - they grow upset, dejected, and feel a tad bit of shame. This emotional neediness - this need for a response
- the RIGHT response - is what trauma does to the human mind. The mind becomes afraid of itself and shrinks itself into the smallest and safest space.
Safety - this is the only law of evolution that we see as a 'basic teleos' in the behavior of organisms. We all need it; we all, unconsciously, seek
it. Even those who run to war - feeling powerful and strong - feel safe, and hence, take for granted how a feeling of safety mediates all those
positive affects we feel. They derive a benefit from safety (occluded from awareness as a relevant parameter) and then, by enacting brutish, ignorant
personalities, they deprive others of the safety required to feel good emotions.
It fascinates me that people talk about God, christ, Allah, Mohommad, Moses, the "prophets", Buddha, etc, and yet it still hasn't quite caught on
that the problem with this thinking is it mythology - its intrinsic ambiguity. Humans, being such vainglorious creatures (requiring pride to flourish)
inevitably got caught up in romantic ideas about their self-experience and their experience of reality. Judaism became infatuated with Judaism;
Christianity with Christianity; Pagan gods with the gods they worshipped. Point is, there was this incestuous, and mindless, emotional neediness to
prove - despite being nakedly motivated by deficiency feelings, and so always stemming back to real life pain that was defensed against - that your
way of thinking is 'true', even if all the evidence before you shows the opposite.
Think about how shrunken a mind such a person is. It's pathetic - whether it be when I seek to hide the real reasons for why I act - or when I see it
in others. Fearfulness that masquerades as 'strong' is pathetic. It would be better for the person acting this way, for instance, to realize that
love really could help them.
But of course, even love is a skill. If it hasn't been shown to you, not only would you not want to experience it, but you would also hate other
people for the importance that they ascribe to it - believing (out of self defense) that its for 'weak people'.
Symmetry is symmetry, and there is no greater law in the universe than the law of symmetry. It is why all physicists seek it, because we see its
presence in everything, and most of all, in ourselves.
Things need to correlate to work. My eyes need to reflect real objects in order for my cognitive mind to be effectively guided in getting what its
motivational systems are pusshing it to want. Everything that we are is made like this. We are a very complicated node - the most complicated node
known - in the universes transformation of energy.