posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 11:23 PM
The problem with modern minds is the naïve acceptance of what we've inherited from our ancestors. Instead of being embarrassed, contemptuous, and
then, compassionate and understanding towards the traumas they've endured, we instead worship the stories, myths and philosophies we've inherited
from them, without a lick of reason being applied to the value of these ideas vis a vis other values.
The issue is other values, and being aware of them. The mind-brain is a self-organizing dynamical system that operates along non-linear principles; it
is the field of complexity theory, which speaks to how multiple interacting elements generate emergent properties under particular constraints. There
is always interaction; and the interactions I speak of are the interactions of the underlying forces which bring matter into being into the various
configurations that they assume with one another. The appropriate criterion should be the circle, and the ways matter tends to self-organize around a
particular 'attractor', which necessarily occurs in this circular form.
When we come to the human mind, we must never forget what the basic criterion is; that is, the unit of selection - what would be the unit of selection
for the human being? By unit of selection, I mean, "the teleodynamism", or teleology, or purpose, of the body's underlying dynamism. Dissipative
structuring (Prigogine) is at all times semiotic.
What matters is your perspective - and so, what matters is your sense of the way the whole can exist, and the parts can exist. For instance, you could
be a part within natures semiosis; and your struggles and suffering, while your own, and semiotically distinctive of your scale of being, is a part
and process within natures larger meanings. Yet you, a human being, no doubt, express a sort of intelligence that finds its basis in the semiotic
conditions, or physical conditionals for life to occur (i.e. gravity, thermodynamics, presence of water, etc) that is the nurturing background that
fosters our experience.
So what is the unit of selection? "States of Self-experience", which occur from one moment to another, are the structures which dissipate the
dynamics of our biological processes. It is the point which, through a fractal congruence between top (psychological state) and bottom (form of
symmetry structuring), organizes the biodynamism of the organisms semiotic wholeness.
Within each brain-mind lies a history, a tableau, of countless past iterations of self experience with their corresponding quantitative effects. Each
state exists along a spectrum between pride and shame, the basic contours of self-experience is social animals like humans. Perception of threat is
highly refined; it is about intentionality; about feelings. Being judged - being evaluated, from the mind of a person who experiences, or knows
us, in a negative way, semiotically sets off our amygdalas into arousal, causing a shift in metabolic functioning towards a defensiveness adaptedness,
a state which we've learned through other interactions (prior to the adaptation, of course) which is more or less a function of how we've been
afforded by our environments. Strong and confident others, who communicate with you, implicitly recognize your worthiness of their positive emotional
intentionality towards you; the very act of a relaxed and enlivening interaction is an affordance: the bequeathing of a capacity for functionality as
a self which otherwise would not exist without that interaction.
In this way, every self is structured by probabilism's that activate the probabalisms structured as their brain processes. Natural law is this - and
it is all encompassing. The issue, the logical issue, pertains to relationality: to whether or not we realize how the 'before' affects, or even
better, infects, the after with feelings that only exist in the context of the formula: B (T) + A = ESE, where B means 'before', T means 'trauma',
A means 'after' (the trauma) and ES means the 'emergent experience' which has resulted from the influence of the 'before', on the way and manner
reality can be interpreted in the after.
If you subscribe to the reality of a metaphysical image of something like a 'soul', then it would seem to pertain to the construction of the self,
or the being who has acted, benefited, and suffered, because of the logical consequences of certain choices, in action, upon his own self-organization
as a self. But it deals with something more basic: to symmetry, or to the law of complementarity, which in the Human being, has emerged in its unique
stability as the law of love, or, in a non-traumatized (and so, non-sadomasochistic system) is unambiguously appreciated as the Golden Rule: do not
treat others as you would not want to be treated.
People craft stories and narratives which have nothing to do with what is known by the sciences. They work totally in darkness, in ignorance, as a
point at the top in rebellion against the logical structuring of the whole system. Reality is made to seem two; body and mind; homeostasis and mind.
Consciousness is not recognized to be ruled by homeostasis, by the logical of dynamical coherency'; the logic of threat and safety is not
appreciated; and so the possibility of trauma, of a trauma that persists physiologically as a biasing structure, is not appreciated as an emergent
property: something that, if it didn't exist, would present a reality which is drastically different from the one one had constructed.
Lets say, at death, the structure you have is the external or projected representamen of all the meanings that flowed through and structured your
system in existing. The meanings come from without - horizontally, and, subsequently become 'organized' vertically. The human at its apex is perched
in the logic of thirdness; communication is not just raw feelings; or reflexive, or uncritized, enaction of behavior. The third is metacognition:
thinking about your thinking, or rather, your reactions to feelings as that relates to the world around us. Learning is the third between feeling and
reaction: it is through learning that the mind grows.
But with early life trauma the self is set alone a different attractor: the attractor of defensiveness - of threat. The break in the self's sense of
connection with the horizontal is cut off; and meanings form in individualistic ways - just like the others relating with him.
Threat, or fear; love, or safety. Feeling states incline thoughts; and thoughts are there to regulate, or justify, feeling states. It is almost always
on observing a reflexive cognitive reaction to a feeling state that you learn why you're doing that: to defend yourself from these feelings.
It is in this way, and with this logic, that the self progresses in its coherency. But not all self's accept this; some wish to believe they have a
right to negate and deny it. They revolt against it on the naïve assumption that they know what it means to violate love. For whatever reasons they
give, they do not acknowledge that power is their attractor, the love of holding it, and wielding it over others, is their idol. Yet, since they grow
- literally feel more expansive - by interactions with the Other (humans, and now, interacting with a particular thought that helps them), they are
behaving in an inherently insane way; a way that is nothing more than a positive feedback loop gone haywire, generating a human rationalization
machine in the process.