Structure of Awareness

This post will condense much of my research into a few figures. Follow closely!



The semiosphere is where our human awareness emerges. Before animals came around there was the chaos of the early Hadean period of the Earth. During this time period, the heavy and dense elements form the inside of the planet towards the surface (lithosphere), where lighter elements like hydrogen and oxygen self-organize into H20 - and there's a lot of it - and so, lots of liquid water. Although the figure doesn't properly represent this fact (I need to fix that!) the lithosphere is first, the hydrosphere is second, and the atmosphere is third, since this is the chronological, as well as the physical-dynamical ordering that actually occurred.

Then, the biosphere emerges as a "3rd" between the hydrosphere (water) and the lithosphere, with practically little to no input (initially) from atmospheric inputs (i.e. either light or atmospherically sources elements). This is the major theory of the biological sciences today, which sees the first life forms growing within the nano-sized pores of the majestic looking hydrothermal alkaline vents, which provided the iron, carbon, and magnesium, plus, because they are non-volcanic, they operate at more realistic intensities conducive to the formation and regulation of life's metabolic time-table.

Eventually, the semiosphere arises, which means the "meaning-sphere". To make sense of meaning, you need a realistic idea of how meaning operates in human brain-minds. Such a theory, or perspective, can be seen in the following diagram.



Here, you see three emotions. I call them fun, care, and awe.

It's important not to take for granted what these ideas ultimately signify - as this is the intellectual blight of our time period: taking what is implicit or insufficiently explained for granted, and just going along with what is already popular/liked by the group we exist amongst. This is not mature thinking!

The little arrows in the diagram refer to where or how certain affects are controlled. This means care mediates between states of awe and states of fun. Indeed, we all utilize/function in these ways, yet it has yet (so far as I know) to be explained in a scientifically satisfactory way.

Play, or fun, speaks to a qualia of "being amused" which can first be seen in fish such as cichlids. These fish blow bubbles and seems to 'play' with them, inasmuch as the behavior seems to have no purpose, biologists consider these sorts of behaviors as a precursor to the formation of more explicit forms of play in higher organisms.

The biologist and ethologist Gordon Burghardt sees this first emergence of play as related to a state he calls "metabolic surplus", and indeed, that's how it should be understood: the cellular "effusion" of metabolic surplus becomes more and more expressed in a seemingly artistic way by animals which play. Play is the rudimentary core of awareness, and indeed, the quality of 'volition' seems almost instinctively directed with the qualia of play, or wanting to 'amuse' the self by pursuing whatever "catches your fancy".

What I'm describing here is a "phylogenetic" understanding, or evolutionary analysis of the development of functions and capacities in organisms. But there is not necessarily any sense of "which comes first" between care and play, as they both seem to emerge and exist in the same organisms at different times, although, as studies of certain fish and reptiles (like Komodo dragon) indicate, one could tentatively claim that play appears first before attachment (care) based affection emerges.

Care, however, does emerge very strongly along the mammalian and avian lines, achieving very deep expression in certain groups - such as primates, whales, and elephants. It is important that people understand that it is not reasonable to talk about human cognition without thinking about the larger interpersonal context which cognition operates within; ethological analysis of elephants - who don't speak - nevertheless reveals a mind that is exquisitely attuned to micro-cues in the behavior of other elephants, which goes to show dissociative and idealistic human researchers typically are when they consider the way elephant minds operate; since we are languaging beings, we idiotically define awareness and meaning through the semiotic lens which we usually create meaning: we act as if our own bodies aren't "languaging" with one another. It reveals nothing more than the truth that we do not value that sort of languaging, even though it is more real, and the actual historical basis for our very thinking and cognizing capacities.

In anycase, care is everywhere in our experience; I for instance "care" to write this piece. I care to smack someone in the face if I'm angry; care is implicit in any act of volition, or expression of agency, because the self is superordinately "caring" for something it needs to express. Animals do not have this quality of being superordinately "involved" with their immediate responses, as there is no communicative mechanism or technology to abstract away from the body. Language - and technology - allows humans to partly abstract from the body - but it has grown beyond control and become a Frankenstein like function; indeed, linguists are some of the most deranged/damaged minds when it comes to speculating as to what is real.

Finally, awe is obviously related to seeing the object in a much higher way - with reference to the observing self in its act of being a finite being with a massive, seemingly infinite world, and being able to experience a strange sense of wonder and unity with the object interacted with. The object - or the thing which inspires awe/wonder - puts the cognizing brain-mind-body into a structural resonance with the archetypal "ideal form" of the object, which is the "core" of the divine mind.

Things are a little different when awe - or enchantment - is the vector by which the human knows the world around it. Yet, it is polarized. Notice how todays world has people in it who are polarized to one side of the affective spectrum of interactional awareness: mystics are "in awe" from the perspective of the absolute - and in the process, "detach" from any other modes of being or relating to others. Conversely, there are those power-obsessed individuals who cling only to the superficial play and fun and amusement of surface feelings. It's easy and 'safe' to not care - but the other, in fact, still absorbs YOUR unresolved baggage, which is a semiotic issue that needs to be resolved.

Care, then, mediates between top and down; it relaxes and controls the absolutist "mystic" tendencies which turns away from the significance and meaning of a world that exists. Conversely, the "trickster" violates the truths which structure and control reality, and so, shows absolutely no respect/awe for the very processes by which his own awareness and capacities unfold. It's deranged, unreasonable, and something every person who lives this way will one day woe.

Finally, lets imagine how these "forms of interactive being" operate within our day to day lives.

As you can see, they interact. One combination - the red - is Self+Other+Care+Awe. These are religious gatherings in which the relationship of self and other is celebrated with reference to a common existential attractor (reference). Or witness the opposite state, the yellow, which is Self+Other+Care+Lightheartedness. Unlike in religion, the common attractor is "lighthearted amusement". Care is there because it puts the rules in place: when we want rules, we don't want chaos, and therefore, are implicitly caring about the others we exist with.

A more complicated analysis is the lower right quadrant, which has the qualities of Care+Lightheartedness+Other, yet describes bullying and sexual violations. Shouldn't this include the self?! In a sense, I agree, but in a more encompassing sense, nobody who bullies or sexually violates other people are in contact with their Self, and so the self and its interests are in a certain sense ignored. On the other hand, Care+Lightheartedness in relation to an other lacks the quality of "rules". When bullying another person, the person doing the bullying doesn't consult his or her reasons for doing so. Rather, they are having fun, and very much "caring" to "play" with the existence/body/name of another person. It is with this sense that I understand bullying and sexual violations to be borne from feeling of lightheartedness, a desire (care to do something) which involves the being, mind and body of another person.

Another implication of the chart is my dethronement of an abstract "Other".

Human beings and animals are always more real than God - or the universe. Another major problem of our time is the complete lack of understanding of this fact: people are more real. In fact, early relationships form/template later life beliefs.

A mean God - A demiurge - is merely the reflection of a human beings early relational life.

Its extremely important to realize this.

a reply to: Astrocyte

I really appreciate your analysis of our psychology, but I do not believe this describes "Awareness" very well.

You do describe our underlying psychological inclinations fairly well though, but I think you can really expound upon this and express it in a much deeper and thorough essay.

-------------
Here is the dictionary definition of "Awareness":

knowledge or perception of a situation or fact.

synonyms: consciousness, recognition, realization; understanding, grasp, appreciation, knowledge, insight; familiarity;

informal light-bulb moment;
formal cognizance

-------------

The various nuanced senses this term can be applied to are vast and I think you ought to appreciate that moreso as you move forward with your psychoanalysis.

For example you related "Awareness" to "Cognition" which is a viable sense of this term.

But I would like to point out that Awareness is more commonly used to describe Recognition rather than simple Cognition.

For instance, a soldier firing his gun in battle shoots a friendly and accidentally kills him due to the fog of war and chaos.

That soldier clearly attained Cognition as he aimed his rifle and knowingly chose to pull the trigger, and he was indeed "Aware" in this sense.

But he lacked true "Awareness" because he failed in Recognition of various data points, namely that he just aimed at and fired upon his friend by accident and later deeply regrets this.

Perhaps you could argue that had he more Care for others and less for himself that he would have been more hesitant and potentially saved his friend from himself, but that is unclear because in the heat of battle you make split second decisions as best you can.

He may have cared very much for others somuchso to the degree that he risked his own life in battle to save many friends, or perhaps if he hesitated and his victim were not his friend but instead an enemy that many of his friends lives could be jeopardized by his hesitancy to act immediately. So I think care is generally indeterminate and rather subjective as it is defined moreso by relative perspective than by any objectivity.

So in my example it is clear that this soldier was both very much Aware and yet very much Unaware simultaneously due to the fact this term "Awareness" embodies many degrees pf meaning and it's usage is defined by context.

I say all of this as constructive criticism as you cannot rename your thread title. I would rename it something like "Structure of Psychology" or something like that rather than "Awareness".

Awareness is better handled as the topic of a Philosophy class rather than a Psychology course.

Here is a quote from the wiki on Self Awareness:

"An early philosophical discussion of self-awareness is that of John Locke. Locke was apparently influenced by René Descartes' statement normally translated 'I think, therefore I am' (Cogito ergo sum). ... According to Locke, personal identity (the self) "depends on consciousness, not on substance."

So John Locke explained that Awareness depends on Consciousness rather than Substance, which goes completely against your thesis which is suggesting Substance is the foundation of Awareness.

In order to resolve this dilemma in your understanding of Awareness I suggest the Philosophies. This course will refine your Psychoanalysis greatly and improve it. I highly recommend this.

You essentially crossed a boundary when you stated substance or material was the foundation of awareness so therefore you must study philosophy to discover why you are definitely wrong about this without a doubt.

I will discuss this further with you.

a reply to: muzzleflash

I agree with muzzleflesh. You seem to suggest substance is the basis consciousness and self-awareness. The thing is there are many findings in the field of quantum mechanics that kind of invalidate the ideas of materialism. I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the implicates of the latest experiments. If you are not challenged by these experimental results then you are just not paying attention to what our latest experiences are with what is happening in reality:



No one is more pro-science than I am. And I have a very deep appreciation of atheism. However, as much as it hurts to consider it the current experimental results seem to lend weight to a more theological or idealistic interpretation of our existence.

It may be the structure of our awareness is not a structure at all. But we are part of a cosmic consciousness where reality and our awareness of reality are strangely connected during our moments of participating in observations. The bottom line is reality is one spooky place!

a reply to: Astrocyte

What really is, is not depended upon what we think it is. In so far as is understood today even conservative scientists understand that based upon current data, nature transcends what we comprehend of it today.

Specifically, there is a conservative scientist that consider that the human condition as a byproduct. But those considerations, are not validated with physical evidence and so, therefore, exist the essential difference between subjective and objective science.

In analogy, your argument is more consistent with flat earth theorist IMHO, in that you seem obsessed with grasping at the idea. That somehow reality can be explained by what is understood today in relation to some altogether way.

Bull#.

Any thoughts?

a reply to: Kashai

RE: "any thoughts"

I like the song clips in your sub-post text.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Perhaps Hyperbole, but what exactly is the conclusion, of an offering that time dilation as the sole effect of traveling faster than 1/2 of light.

I mean, in all sincerity given such an effect to time, should there not be a corresponding effect upon space.

The way I see it there is really no difference between achieving 99.99% the speed of light and entering the center of a black hole.

Alternatively, it is possible that entering the center of black hole implies, achieving infinite density as would traveling fast than the speed of light, conventionally, as in so much as we comprehend today objectively.

a reply to: Astrocyte

Are you familiar with the term juxtaposition?

a reply to: dfnj2015

All material matter is fundamentally energy, specifically Massed (or condensed) Light (Electromagnetism).

E = MC^2
I explain this in my semi-recent thread "Attention ATS You Are Light Being Alive" or whatever I named it.

This concept, that everything is just energy, is the basis of modern physics, super string theory, etc.

"Awareness" or "Consciousness", which makes Sentience, is poorly understood by humanity currently. It is a source of much confusion and controversy.

Ancient Wisdom on the subject is matching our current observations and modern physics theories fairly consistently, ala the "Tao of Physics" (which is a decent book despite it's discrepancies).

It is complicated because research shows that Consciousness is not based on the Brain or Spinal system exactly, as it is shown that Plant life exhibits Consciousness (it detects and reacts to Light sources, it reacts to Analgesic-painkillers, and it even reacts to sound).

So consciousness is a complex and mystifying phenomenon that is both poorly defined and poorly understood.

I deal with this topic in much more depth in other threads, and as it is 4am and I'm typing on my phone, I'll get back to you on additional details.

In summary, to be concise and get to the point - it is extremely likely the entire Universe as a whole can be accurately described as an Organism, as a Unified Energy Field, and as exhibiting Super-Consciousness.

More on that stuff later...