Humanity is caught in the circle of life. It is only by understanding the circles which make us up that we can figure out how we work.
The universe has been conceptualized as one big ouroboros. But I detest the gratuitous association of this image with a serpent: no doubt a frill
added by people who've come to romanticize "not caring".
If love is everything - and I believe it is, even though I can be pulled into the attractors of other people's beliefs that "there is no reason",
it is too immense a fact, too powerful a force, too useful a capacity, for it to not be the key to the human cosmos.
Yet, we can take things slowly. We needn't say anything more than 'love is essential'.
But how essential? Is the circle a symbol for this utter simplicity? Is the dynamical meeting up of the cells processes into a reconstruction of an
earlier morphology, not in itself a circular process - a refueling of the structure of the cell? Imagine, if you can, that running out of gas meant
running out of car. It is this self-recreation which makes the computer analogy of the mind so horrendous: computers don't fall apart, and they
certainly do not reconstruct their bits after they have dissipated out of existence. There is something circular and spiritual that moves through the
molecules which make up a cell. It doesn't do it itself; and the logic - the canalization - this seeming awareness of orderliness, or coordinating
what appears to be thousands upon thousands of elements, dissipating, moving, generating, structuring; how can the same stuff manage to do this, again
But this is a single cell. A cell which, somehow, is composed of molecules which are composed of atoms which are being dynamically forced into being
by protons, electrons and the quarks of matter (pun intended). When you realize what a cell is, how much more significant is a creature like us? With
not one cell, but 10-100 trillion cells!
These cells, also, have seemingly become coopted by other circles - circle forming between other circles! What is cell-cell relatedness based upon?
Cell Adhesion Molecules (CAM's) and Substrate Adhesion Molecules (SAM's). These are molecules which seem to serve as 'signposts' for other
molecules to read off. The circles are not just structuring things: but they literally mean to make things make sense. The specialized protein
embedded in the membrane (CAMs) tell the cell that a particular process is in play. The process is the meaning; it is the "it" which the protein is
dynamically emergent to "know". It exists for this process, although, indeed, it can be coopted into another process if its "understanding" proves
useful to another process. SAM's are those molecules in between cells - they are the 'stuff' of the intercellular space. It is around this stuff -
these SAM's - that the circles of the cells, with CAMs built in to sense the 'meaning' going on, dance around, and again, in circular, spiral like
This is cell-cell relation, and it is ubiquitous to all organisms. But this is within organisms; soon, in various different ways, the organism becomes
looped into a relation with various electromagnetic frequencies; light, the earths magnetic field, and perhaps still others. But we can be sure that
whatever else exists will be a loop, and will be compatible with existing loops.
See ourselves, and see how many 'spiritual' loops there are. It would be naive to think these loops don't loop into the loops of our cells. Or that
are our cells, subject to entropy and dissipation, wont exert a primary bottom-up force on our consciousness.
Your body is itself a symbol of its functionality. Structure and function our 'looped' together. A fat person can be assumed to eat, and if its
'genetic', then it must be assumed that an immediate ancestor liked to eat. A short person implies a history of experiencing your height being a
target of ridicule: the culture, the competitiveness, and the obvious weakness of being short in a society that prioritizes individual exceptionality,
means that a short person is a person vulnerable to having his height exploited, and so, vulnerable to feeling weak, when they may very much want to
Is this perhaps what is meant by the term 'napolean' syndrome? It's a weird thing how often short men 'ascend' the ranks, as if they have a
greater motivation to 'prove' something - something which, because of the loopiness of things, actually refers back to a personal pain - a source of
suffering, which, quite pathetically, is being dissociated from and projected upon the world. This sort of short man, with a loopiness that comes
behind the back, is unconsciously motivatec by threat-based brain processes to act in a way that has massive consequences for the social reality of
millions of others. Stalin (5'6), Hitler (5'8), Napolean (5'6), and you can add to the list. Simple things like this - relating back to
'primitive' embodied meanings, become the actual, biosemiotic foundation for mass genocide. Talk about loopiness!
And yes. Recognizing the self in the other, the equivalence between self and others, means that our emotions are 'spread' like wildfire simply by
observing them; in vision - I "know" what a face or body movement means without thinking. My feelings REPRESENT the truth of the others experience.
Similarly, in my head, I have to deal with the fact that I am feeling and sensing the other. What If I can't handle feelings of shame when I observe
them in others, or in myself? The self-self image is a consequence; a higher level property relating to self-awareness. I know that state. That
statement fails to capture the fact that a knowing state
is itself an entity: a higher level, neurologically based, 'form' that responds to
'forms' out there - in the social world. It is from these units - real units called "self and other", that self-awareness emerges, and thinking
derives. Your mind becomes 'looped' with the images - the feelings - which reflexively represent the 'other'. Why is, according to neuroimaging as
well as neuroanatomy, our right hemisphere larger at the frontal pole and larger in the back? That is, why is the part of the brain dedicated to
reading affective cues in other faces (frontal pole) and the visual modality it works through (back of the head) larger? It likely refers back to the
facts of symmetry and the logic of semiosis in human interactions. If I feel, but do not communicate that to the other, I will never know it, or
respond to it, as if it had any adaptive significance: the left hemisphere will be smaller, because it doesn't recognize an obvious advantage that
comes from correlating to the truth of what causes what.
The final loop - the final 'frontier', cannot and should not be touched without the basics and basis of your existence being understood. But alas;
our world is steeped in magic and occultism and mysticisms which, because they loop more powerfully than other, take over the mind, and with it, the
sanity and simplicity that comes with understanding the basis and basics of things.
It is all looped. We are looped into one another; and in trying to squirt away, and in saying "individualism" is good, we destroy more and more, and
with it, the experience of being will no longer be so exploitable. It will be lost, because the human being, in effect, got lost in the circle of