Plato's allegory of human reality as being equivalent to a cave in which people interact with the shadows produced by a 'fire' and machine-like
marionettes is a poetic way of describing projection.
Consult the above diagram and consider its logic. To add some complexity, lets contextualize your state of object awareness by describing the logic of
the feeling dynamics which are implicitly present in your observing self:
This is as logical a formulation for human awareness as there is.
So in any single action, we are structured bottom-up by the functionality of a motivational state. The "I" observer is 'surrounded' by 7 motivational
systems postulated by developmental psychologists, just to capture the 'breadth' of the needs which humans instinctively express. These systems (by no
means to be understood ontologically) are described by the green circle which surrounds the I; around this circle lies the ontological 'scaffolding'
of development, which is "hidden" within the final and most encompassing circle, the logic of interpersonal recognition processes.
Notice each party is structured in the same way, and so, the logic of interaction is mostly the "harmonizing" of motivational systems ('needs') as a
way to minimize stresses.
To return to the first image, the object you interact with will ineluctably be an object relating to some past interaction. Every state of mind, of
course, is dependent on some form of past interaction - whether with the external world, or an internal and unconscious association; sometimes
meaningful and oftentimes not meaningful, the 'random' thoughts which appear in our head, if looked at logically, will fall within the parameters
described in the second chart. But the first chart is more about the object and how it is changed. In interacting with the world, we are affected in
our perception of what the object 'means'. The 'meaning' is always a relational property, but it is always deriving from some intrinsic quality of the
object which 'ramifies' a complex effect by interacting with the unconscious mind-brain.
The functional loop is dyadic; you and the object; how you cognize, or react to the affect you just observed, affects your subsequent experience of
the object. We 'narrate' an experience of our own experience by observing and reacting, again and again, to the objects we experience and the way we
experience them. But hardly ever is the experience simple: the purple region of our development is shaped, and in being shaped, is constantly' guiding
our object relations with world. Every commercial or advertisement we see is designed to activate a motivational system and associate it with a
product. T.V shows, movies, and other media sell cliches - and the product is your intentional awareness, or "how you identify as a self". Everytime
we interact with such material, based in attachment, or affiiliation or caregiving needs, a specific sort of interpretation of self-experience is
"sold" to people, without the observers having any understanding of how malleable they really are - as dynamical systems, to anything they focus their
Can you see the 'bits' that make up your experience? Can you see the difference between your observing self and object self, and how their qualities
differ, or are lateralized, to 'different' parts of us? Ideally, the object and the observing self are coherently entangled. The observing self is the
emergent product of attachment, forever the ontological substance that derives from 'love', from connection, and hence, represents the 'ideal
symmetry' of consciousness. Ideally, again, this observing pole is connected with the whole biosphere, as when its knowledge grows, its experience of
its own significance grows as well; the sense of the self as an ecological product of natural processes, emerging as 'caretaker' and 'witness' to
what is, logos incarnate, dawns as the inevitable and only reality.
The object bewitches, however, and when there is no awareness or understanding of the behavior of the loop, between self and observed, knower with
known, then the self creates for itself its own executioner. The break, as is often the case, is a springboard for putting oneself back together but
at higher level of coherency. When you do survive things, oftentimes one becomes stronger.
The bewitching object of experience, for example, would be the exhiliration of feeling that comes with a particular situation (partying, reading a
book, hearing a riveting speech, etc), and then finding your self idealizing about the 'perfection' of this moment in time, and feeling a desire to
make a commitment to 'recreate it' again and again. A philosophy is born from these sorts of rash and reckless "agreements" between the self and its
object; a tacit communication which the author seldom pays much attention to, nor understands the nature of the consequences of.
This is the 'micro-structure' of the mind.
The loop is the overall shape of phenomenology, whereas the structure can be described in three ways: psychodynamically; in terms of the categories of
cognitive science; or Piercean phenomenology.
This complex chart should be read as follows: cognitive science categories of perception and cognition describe the passive and active dimensions of
self-experience. Affect is the 'mediating' dynamic that links the two processes into a singular activity. At the top, psychodynamic categories are
placed between the cognitive sciences categories to reveal where they operate: dissociation controls perceptual processes, whereas idealization
processes control cognitive responses. Finally, Peircean phenomenology reveals how these categories actually occur in our minds: we first feel
(perception pole) and then react to what we feel (cognition pole). Learning only occurs when the latter coherently relates to the former.
on 25-9-2018 by Astrocyte because: (no reason given)