Homo Idioticus

If we live in a world where we and almost everyone we know claims "no one knows the truth", than the world we live within is one where the representative consciousness of the social organism - by definition a dissipative structure - is ontologically out of touch with the dynamism of its body.

If you aren't one of those people who feel iffy, negative and strange feelings when someone says "everyone and everything is ontologically a part of the same phenomenon i.e. the universe", and therefore "one", you are in advantaged situation - much further in your place in understanding because you have overcome the state of ontological embeddedness in a false culture.

If you body is built from efficient causality, as theory of life researchers would describe it, than your psychology - the part of you that is 'outward' focused - is entirely a creation of your relations with others in your relational environment. It is a massive frustration for me, being so acquainted and up to date with the direction of modern day physics (relationality, quantum gravity) biology (theory of dissipative structure; complexity theory; biosemiotics) and psychology (relational psychoanalysis, interpersonal neurobiological, Luhmann's world in sociological complexity) as well as the way philosophers are working with this new way of seeing things - and to see that our world is going in the very opposite direction - led by ignoramuses who don't read and yet assume themselves to have a "special knowledge" of reality that is nothing more than cherry picking advatangeous information - this being a very basic function of the animal brain

When the renowned psychoanalyst and traumatologist Philip Bromberg writes:

“Dissociation narrows ones range of perception so as to setup non-conflictual categories of self-experience”, this basically means that whenever you think, your are applying a formative control on what arises within your attentional processes. What you feel, on the other hand, is a function of efficient causality - i.e. reflexively beyond your control to influence as long as you don't objectify and conceptualize what you feel, and therefore make it subject to formative transformation.

The idea of "name it to tame it" has been an ancient belief and is the basis of mankind's magical relationship to the power of words. It is not words, however, as much as the concepts and ideas that logically organize within a system of concepts, that gives words their power and meaning. Yet - ancient man was apt to reverse this relationship: as if the word preceded the person who needed the word to make its conscious experience of self-in-a-world coherent. Words - names - and the magical effect they have upon our internal organization, is the basis of the evolution of our consciousness. That said, words and concepts don't necessarily need to refer to real things. Words can breed false realities and false convey a sense of coherency to those which apply them.

This is the mystery of language, concepts and words - i.e. the symbolization of reality within a "conscious knower". If the conditions which underlied the emergence of our mind-brain deteriorate - such as the normal developmental scaffolding of a pre-agricultural society - then the external context which 'scaffolds' the emergence of a stable mind-brain will be lost and forgotten, while a new culture arises that enforces very different feeling relations that unlike the generative context, which stimulated love, compassion, fairness - and all the cognitive and affective internal conscious strategies that it implies - comes to generate competition - and so competition functions as the Core Metaphorical Referent - "metaphorical', because all of life is conceived in terms of a "struggle", which implies a sense of deficiency, which, thanks to modern traumatology, is understood to be the aftermath of unresolved psychoemotional trauma - that leads to a culture in which brute strength (i.e. manliness begins to operate as the core attractor - or the core "interpretant" - of the Human animal's consciousness.

Most Human Beings are Psychologically Deluded

Relationships with other Humans are ontological and epistemological entanglements within your neuropsychodynamical structure - although this very important and crucial idea is hardly recognized by most Humans, largely because the learning process is heavily shaped by the social impact of authoritarian 'critics' who force you to adopt - unthinkingly - the viewpoints of others. Your success in the procedure is to be able to 'cogntively replicate' the same ideas. But whether you actually or sincerely care about knowing the world i.e. about truth, is largely unarticulated, although implied. Nevertheless, the competition society rewards success - not ontological or conceptual truth, and thus all the sciences and humanities have been deformed by a system of social power which for the strangest of reasons has been unquestionably tolerated despite the 'marks' such social processes leave upon us - depositing the evidence of its power on our minds.

Knowledge is everything. If your referents - or what you think to be true - are simplistic and lack the sophistication of a more encompassing viewpoint - you're going to be wrong in how you think the world works. Furthermore, Humans who are aware of the processes which organize our organization into a "self" will such such Humans in a way comparable to how Humans see animals or baby's: we take amusement in their efforts because we understand their motivation and intentionality; and it amuses us because its so "primitive", yet consonant with ourselves.

In a similar manner, to have knowledge OF a process is to make you conscious of the causes, effects and general tendency of the material process. Because we are dynamical organisms with identical interpretive structures (which would need to be the case if we are to be effective cooperators), to be aware of yourself in this way is grant you a "metanymic" awareness of other Humans and the way they act. You begin to see the fearfulness, anxiety, and the confusion which aggravates those feelings. We NEED knowledge to make sense of reality - and even if that knowledge is wrong and ultimately self-destructive - we hold ourselves 'together' i.e. maintain our sanity and cohesiveness as a self -by maintaining illusions about what is and isn't real.

However, those who know whats real - because they have subjected themselves to a rigorous study of those Human fields dutifully afforded greater epistemological status i.e. physics, biophysics, and biology - will look upon such people and see in them the horrendous potential for Humans to be idiotic, self-destructive, and fearful.

The fear of shame paradoxically overwhelms many people's fear of physical death - something I personally can't quite comprehend.

Though it makes sense: if our identity - our unity - as a being is implicitly suggested by the feeling of shame (i.e. "I care what you think or know about me") then the incessant Human habit of "dying for glory", "dying for esteem", or "for dignity", paradoxically refers not to the primacy of the individual over the group - but of the difficulty an individual human experiences when the context around them provides "no way out" from a solipstistic fantasy that places the individual - and their dignity, esteem, and "heroism",

even above their physical existence.

As physical beings we are indeed individuated - yet it takes the spirituality of the mind which arises from matter to see it's ultimate union with it, and so with the others it arises from.

Not being able to be "helped" by the acceptance of others into acknowledging this relationship, egotism paradoxically affirms the superiority of the self (and it's union with the other) over the superficial sense of being 'physically separate' from others.

a reply to: Astrocyte

I think I understand the OP. I believe that a Lack of an appreciation of maths (i.e.) statistics is a fatal flaw in the population as a whole. I want to weep at times when people make sweeping generalisations based on small populations or incidents. Sadly some of these false Impressions are linked to some of or long term social problems and perceived animosities.

a reply to: Astrocyte

Wow. Ok, so what's the cure then???

To "Know Thyself"???

It is a massive frustration for me, being so acquainted and up to date with the direction of modern day physics (relationality, quantum gravity) biology (theory of dissipative structure; complexity theory; biosemiotics) and psychology (relational psychoanalysis, interpersonal neurobiological, Luhmann's world in sociological complexity) as well as the way philosophers are working with this new way of seeing things - and to see that our world is going in the very opposite direction - led by ignoramuses who don't read and yet assume themselves to have a "special knowledge" of reality that is nothing more than cherry picking advatangeous information - this being a very basic function of the animal brain

Wow, thanks for stepping down from on high to spew your judgment...

Though only a Homo Idioticus may I cast a judgement in return???
Perhaps you are the embodiment of a new lineage of humanity whose haplotype expressions have created a new, better man:
Homo Arroganticus

Thanks in advance for fusing the atom, solving world hunger and break the light speed barrier with your unequalled brain power...

So on behalf of all the Homo Idiotici; take a hike back to your tower in the sky...

-Chris

a reply to: Christosterone

Taking it a bit personal aren't you???

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Christosterone

Taking it a bit personal aren't you???

To be honest, I was offended by the ops use of a thesaurus....

Or to state it in terms the op can understand:
--It is from possession and dominion over inexorable facts I find self-aggrieved displeasure in the authors application of utterances of synonymy...
OR
--To be honest, I was offended by the ops use of a thesaurus...

-Chris

a reply to: Christosterone

Maybe he's just trying to keep up with his Readers Digest "Words of the Month" practice or something.

Besides, what's wrong with using big words??? I enjoyed your use of "haplotype".

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Christosterone

Maybe he's just trying to keep up with his Readers Digest "Words of the Month" practice or something.

Besides, what's wrong with using big words??? I enjoyed your use of "haplotype".

Fair enough...

-Chris

a reply to: Astrocyte

Bet you can't fix a garbage compactor if it breaks down.

originally posted by: Astrocyte

If you aren't one of those people who feel iffy, negative and strange feelings when someone says "everyone and everything is ontologically a part of the same phenomenon i.e. the universe", and therefore "one", you are in advantaged situation - much further in your place in understanding because you have overcome the state of ontological embeddedness in a false culture.

I have to tell you: I've never heard anyone say that. And I lack the motivation to look up those words in an attempt to figure out what you think they mean. I'm surrounded by people with Master's degrees, but alas, not PhD's. Oh, I do know one or two, but they are much more likely to say, "How's it goin'?" or "What's for dinner?" I don't live in a "false culture." I live in a culture that some people find fault with. I have yet to see them come up with an alternative I would want to live in, so I continue to earnestly hope they continue to fret and whine about it rather than cause me grief by attempting to implement their version of Hell they call utopia.

Well, if you make a thread, you would think connectivity would be all important, instead you seem to have buggered off after a relativity short time...that's physics for you!

a reply to: mOjOm

Yes, know yourself honestly. Know what shame means and what pride means. Know and understand how these states relate to the way and manner our nervous systems are entangled with one another. This is a finite, physical process mediated by extraordinarily complex - though in principle, understandable - correlations.

We've already discovered the physical correlate of how this process kicks off: mirror neurons. These neurons simulate self-other relations emanating from other bodies. Even if its animals, we cannot help but project into what we see human-style intentionality.

Yes, so know yourself. Don't be intellectually lazy or unjustifiably prideful about what you think you know.

There is something epistemologically true about the scientific method i.e. subjecting your claims to experimental methods.

And as for science being somehow antagonistic towards spirituality - that is patently untrue and also implicitly dualistic - implying that mind and matter are different from one another i.e. not dynamically tethered through real material processes.

a reply to: Astrocyte

Naughty OP, Jesus said don't call anyone foolish or an idiot:

Matthew 5:22; But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, 'Raca,' is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Raca: an Aramaic word meaning ' worthless ' or ' empty '.

Neither is Donald Trump nor the universal homeless guy worthless. It's that thing of judge not.

Yes, I have been guilty often of doing this in temper and tantrum, but I try hard not to do it. Now if ever I do it I immediately call myself a fool, too, for being a fool enough to call another person a fool.

a reply to: Christosterone

Homo Arroganticus

No, I can understand your viewpoint - typical, but wrong.

You're brain latched to this comment and ignored the rest i.e. how truly reasonable thinking remains anchored to objective reality, which is what is ultimately meant by the comment "it is a massive frustration".

It is true, and I think, understandable for people with an understanding of the issues to be incredibly frustrated by the way the embodiement of the mind i.e. the brain, can force false realities - and, as you show with your remark, dissociative reactions i.e. you comment on the apparent (and which I do not dispute) condescension of that remark, without addressing why it is an understandable reaction from people who aren't intellectually lazy i.e. have re-organized their own mind0brain by reading into epistemologically and ontologically significant area - such as physics, biophysics, and how these fields SHOULD form the background for any intellectually defensible position on anything related to Human affairs.

This is new stuff - and you, from your lower-level vantage point, feel hurt by my remark, which I've already traced to the fact that Humans emerged through the "epistemological crunch" of shame/pride dynamics.

You ignore your feelings when you get reading to talk or write, which is why you basically wrote what you did - the whole satire thing lets you metabolize the feelings my words evoked in you by bringing about a state of pride i.e. you, or at least within the larger community of ATS - have both released the anxiety/irritation elicited by my post (to which you aren't properly configured to affectively metabolize) and presented a 'sign' for others: this guy doesnt know what he's talking about; plus he's arrogant and thinks he knows more than other people".

I do claim that - but I try to minimize the pride it gives me - inasmuch as everything I argue is about our underlying unity - and thus, how absurd it is when people search - and even use ideas, concepts, etc - to defend ideas that are ecologically, dynamically, and therefore, ontologically impossible.

Some people so hate the nature of reality - and its intrinsic discoverability by Human minds - that they would rather 'gt rid' of science as if science were somehow epistemologically inferior.

People who accord a 'superority' to gnosis - or personal spiritual experience - are insane people who ignore the more general fact of human delusion, human sensitivities to other peoples feeligs etc. In short, science prevents the damaging and dangerous influence of megalomania - whereas megalomania insulates the megolamaniac from his craziness.

a reply to: schuyler

Do you know what a feedback loop is? It's when an effect - such as being shamed by a parent - becomes a cause i.e. motivating ways of being that

Why can't you see the life process in these terms? Because your brain can't metabolize reality - that's why.


Hence "it sets up non-conflictual cetegories of experience" i.e. will compel you to keep drumming up what you think is true.

False equivalences, also, seem to reign here. What you denigrate is a function of a dissociation of a species normal attractor. The culture of "people with masters" acts as an external referent to which your brain-mind incessantly refers for its enlivenment.

So, for instance, while I say "hey, your motivations/feelings aren't really real, but functions of a dissociation/entanglement with instrumental adaptations to threats - you form your reality in the shadow of threat, and most of all, fear of shame i.e. admitting your underlying relatedness to others".

You will deny this, and, being 'supported' within yourself by the views of the other people you make meaning with, will feel perfectly confident to tell me I'm wrong, and not just that, but that my desire for a caring, more self-aware society, is "hellish". Yet isn't that a false equivalence? It's like one person tormenting another person and telling a third person criticizing him for his meanness "don't be intolerant of my feelings". But it's absurd: your feelings are logically motivated by a feeling of deficiency - an unreal state motivated into existence by trauma i.e. dysfunction.

It's the acme of ignorance and arrogance that sociopathic narcissists claim that up is down and down is up, black is white and white is black, and really think they aren't going to destroy the conditions underlying Human existence on planet formed from non-linear dynamics.

A creature that cant see himself in non-linear ways - in a universe ruled by non-linear rules of organization - is doomed to extinction.

a reply to: Revolution9

And yet such situations exist.

If someone were to jump off a building and killed themselves, wouldn't you regard their absence of a "representation of gravity = bad" utterly foolish?

No, it's understandable when stupidity abounds and people find themselves succumbing to calling the vast majority of what we see "idiotic". The word "idiotic" is not essential to Humans, but is essential to the Human being since the agricultural era.

a reply to: Astrocyte

Do you think knowing the true mechanics of such emotional systems in some way lessons their impact and maybe even their purpose as well???

Knowing that your feelings of compassion or pride are simply biochemical triggers to suit some physical process and knowing those connections have different effects when viewed from this perspective, do you think that it's beneficial overall???

I guess I can see it as both a good thing and bad depending upon what exactly the situation and emotion is. I mean certain things like shame or pride can be very harmful if not controlled somehow, but they also act as a control which can be good for others who get out of line because of them. But to some degree, having the ability to override emotions with a logical approach may not always be a good thing. Sometimes we feel those things because they are trying to tell us something that logic hasn't been able to get across to us.

a reply to: mOjOm

Oh absolutely. Shame is there to remind us of our dynamical relatedness. Guilt is a 'cognitive marker' that we've done something shameful and should own up to it to requilibrate our relationships with others.

The problem is that a culture of narcissism has emerged where 'cliches' - or superficial ways of speaking, acting, and being, are necessary to be in the "in-group" - and yet these cliches work by denying the dynamical impact of shame.

If you pay attention to yourself, you can see that a very quick implicit 'registration of shame' (negative embodied feelings with a specific social cause) precedes the motivation to act a certain way.

It is amazing to me that people can do this and not recognize that they are doing something quite unnatural. Culture - and its "external' nature - has allowed for the possibility of two realities: the real world i.e. how energy moves (thermodynamics, self-organization, biosemiosis) and the way Humans describe the "ontological world" outside it.

The problem is - the real world CONFIGURES HOW WE ORIENT to reality - and so, the direction of our thinking may be entirely in the service of denying shame, vulnerability, and an utter insufficiency as a self without a conscious orientation of love and care and acceptance of the other.

In other words, if you are philosophically involved with "denying others" i.e. "meritocracy" "individualism", etc, you are basically lying to yourself, and there is some dynamical incentive i.e. power - which maintains that thrust.

So how does the soul figure into this? It is outside the forces of both nature and nurture.