posted on Jul, 16 2018 @ 06:24 PM
There are at least two visions of a human future: one based in love and care, and another is the sort of dystopian stuff we see in Hollywood movies
and read in popular fiction, especially of the graphic comics kind.
A superficial mind would see these differences and not notice the body from which they 'stem' from. Every action can be construed as having an
'expressed' pole, which includes the expressed behaviors using the body, and a 'motivational' pole, or a state of affairs which compels this
sort of behavior. Humans are very mucn subject to the science of behaviorism, because the sorts of creatures we are occur in rhythmic, metabolic
'cycles', and since these cycles are 'metabolic', they ultimately refer to the sort of ontological coupling that exists between the organism and
For example, a bacteria is 'ontologically coupled' with glucose because its genetic (nucleic acid) and protein systems are designed to chemically
derive energy from glucose. This molecule and the organism are 'coupled', so that if the molecule is 'detected', the system becomes entrained to
its presence. Yin and Yang.
Now, when you progress up to the human being, the 'cognitive coupling' between organism and world has become very different, with an actual
observing pole that is informed by a preverbal 'affective language' that refers mainly to recognition dynamics - or the experience of having your
feeling need empathically known by the human interlocutor your interfacing with - and an 'object pole' that is largely derived from the emergent
cultural properties of social languaging.
Most people are organized by the superficial 'languaging' of mainstream culture, without much noticing the larger scale affective dynamics that are
more delayed in producing its effect - as opposed to a mispronounced word or incorrect syntax - 'a way of being' does not reveal its falsity right
away; it might take years for the full circle of its logic to take full effect, at which point, 'how one lives' becomes a matter of existence -
whether one believes it can be different, or whether they will succumb to the flux of their existent self-organization, and 'go with the flow'.
Certain patterns emerged over human cultural evolution over the last 5 thousand years that repeat the same sorts of facts in different sorts of ways.
Elite psychology wants to emphasize 'determinism', and they want to emphasize selfish survival of the fittest, because this is literally the
value-suystem that has driven their psychology to 'elite' status. Elites within any culture, particularly over the last 3500 years, where it has
taken on much greater proportions, are driven by a philosophy that sets "godhood" as the endgoal. Again - the pursuit of power - is the root
motivation - or value system - here.
All these forces derive their existence from social processes that begin at the preverbal level. We were all babies once; and as infants, we were
passively structured by the sorts of constraints imposed upon us by our environments. For 2 whole years, facial expressions, social situations, and
vocal tones, inform the babies right brain, building the 'implicit relational self' from a storehouse of interactions that stem from the infants
observing self - its exposure to other peoples emotions, and the requirements of the human brains affective systems to 'map' the intentional states
that grow out from affective states; adapting to those states means 'identifying' with those states which represent power, which is what happens to
a baby in such a context: it assimilates during its affective mode of 'knowing' - hearing the sounds, seeing the faces, and recognizing the logical
'affective-intentional' orientation that face or voice is acting from. Babies are so much truer to facts like these than adults - dissociated as
they are from the logic of preverbal affective communication through face, voice and body.
If you don't care to 'take account' of this time period by recognizing the logical relevance of your early life developmental context, as well as
the history of the people who shaped you, your brain is not 'finding' the right facts - the right ontological objects - which most efficiently, and
simply, explain why you feel the way you feel.
Elite culture doesn't notice this. They build delusions for themselves while they live, all the while suspecting in a dissociated part of them that
this is gonna end up bad - as they must think, given how logically symmetry, balance and complementarity appear in anything we analyze in the world.
What is the lie that traps people today? That dissociation is a good thing? That trauma is a good thing? That violence against the world is a good
thing? Or is it idealization - the idea that 'reality is inherently bad', ergo, anything we 'idealize' in its place 'makes it better'. A
disturbed thought since it tendentiously ignores the nature of that motivation: why do you think the world is bad? Not everyone feels this way; and
this is what matters: your feelings describe YOUR history of INTERACTIONS. If you've allowed yourself to generalize from a personal fact - from a
very local set of realities - to the 'universal', you've been duped into a very irrational position vis-a-vis reality.
Do you expect the world to cry for you? The only one who can cry for you is yourself - only you can recognize the suffering, and like Jesus, 'bear
the burden' of knowing the pain that motivates the behavior of so many human beings. The thing which menaces us - which prevents us from growing and
thriving as individuals and as a coherent society - is dissociation of the concept of dissociation: of denial of trauma; denial of hurt; denial of
vulnerability. These are idealizations, usually 'implanted' into individuals in childhood, and rigorously 'held to' in a stubborn and ultimately
self-destructive way - primarily because, in order to change or grow, one has to tolerate the experience of suffering - of depression - as a shift
from one mode of being (or value system) to another, entails the perturbation that all physical systems show when they 'switch' attractors.
Responsibility for 'what is', and recognition that a better world requires psychological and physical work, can be aided by an evolutionary picture
of how we evolved, and how it is our mind works - the 'motivation-thought' cognition system which has many ontological 'layers', but which is
ultimately structured by the human realities of being a self in relation with other selves. Respectign the needs of other selves, and not insisting on
primitive images of 'survival of the fittest', must be the only logic compatible with surviving climate change, or perhaps even reversing it.