posted on Sep, 15 2018 @ 08:46 PM
Everywhere I go I encounter problems - stereotypical people governed by clichés formed around idealized attachments which stem from unresolved life
The rules of how we work is made of simple ingredients - good, affordances, power, enlivenment, wellbeing, in relation to bad, invasive,
disempowering, disenlivening, and anxiety-inducing experiences. Yet, our experiences are so 'fast'; we can imagine that its all just a "haze", but
there really is an actual series of micro-moments of consciousness where your state of consciousness is probabilistically biased by the event before
it. The 'circles' our minds run through is the narrative: we need to make meaningful, or coherent, what it is were directly interacting with. And
how do we do that other than by our own unconscious "picking up" from where "we" last were (isn't it funny that we sometimes refer to ourselves
in the plural?).
The human self is inherently "multiple", in that every lived context constitutes an unconscious interaction between a scalar-semiotic field of
'objects' which probabilistically triggers meaning-images in the perceiving mind. The brain is a cybernetic loop, corresponding in its functionality
to the perception-cognition cycles within our consciousness, with 'affect', or the motivational process in play, driving the formation of narratives
through the above cycles.
Pluralism is a Lie
When it comes to the question "how do we educate our youth", it seems vitally important to discriminate between true knowledge and false knowledge,
defined as "knowledge which correlates to causal processes in the external world", and "knowledge which doesn't". The science of physics, for
instance, has a coherent explanation for how matter is organized. If it weren't for science, this computer wouldn't exist; the computer requires
knowledge of a theory of quantum electrodynamics, which is in itself based upon the science of electromagnetism. This computer enables experiences you
couldn't possibly have without those minds driven and motivated to understand the nature of the universe around them.
Pluralism as a political doctrine means "all beliefs are equal". It allows Nazism as much as it does an enlightened scientific consciousness,
although the two are by no means equal: the former ignores causal dynamics while the latter seeks to correlate its consciousness to causal dynamics.
The former can't think and can only romanticize the importance of what they feel; the latter doesn't need to project its needs on reality - instead
it fully embraces the logic of what logic tells it: that it is an epiphenomenon of complex circular processes that began billions of years ago.
Wondrous! it - or I - think. But some people are just depressed by the ways of things - something that only makes sense against a history of trauma.
So pluralism manifests in all sorts of forms; LGBTQ is an archetypal example which implicitly shames anyone who dares to remind activists that
homosexuality and transgenderism are emergent phenomena i.e. are the peoduct of gene-environment dynamics, ultimately, in effect, it is a relational
phenomenon that expresses something intrinsic about the culture we live in: it is selfish.
Metaphorical continuitites weave different sorts of phenomenal realities into a single "kind". Self and Other are vital forms of interaction that
implicitly begin in utero, when the mother "plays" with the being forming within her. How the mother thinks has much to do with her lived context;
is she married? Does she have regular, positive, enlivening experiences? Is she securely attached? Individuated? Able to accept legitimate criticism?
Is she reasonable? All such considerations are regulated by the 'cultures' she embodies - and set forth from here, the fetus within her "imbibes"
the logic reduced into ontogenetic embyological patterns.
The birth of the infant and then its release into the world opens the infant to the semiosis of faces and voices: the vectors of human affective
communication. The tone of our voice communicates threat or safety; and so do our faces. A high voice - motherese - suits the safety needs of the
infant, as low tones are associated with predators, and therefore are genetically cued to activate vigilance in mammals.
How many people take account for these things? Are you aware that for over 300,000 years, homo sapiens have held their infants with them almost all
the time? Body-to-body contact is a primary substratum for later semiotic processes; it is initially about thermoregulation, but its clear that this
'warmth by being close' becomes 'closeness brings warmth' (emotional), generating the attachment and comfort which comes from being connected to
the caregiver. Today, most parents are still encouraged not to sleep with their infants, as if our nervous systems hadn't evolved a way to keep us
ultra-alert to the dangers of rolling on our infants, for instance, by alerting the mind before doing that which it values not to do (imagine rolling
off the bed, and the anticipation which occurs in your head before you do it, preventing you from falling).
In this case, the quality of self and other interactions is the metaphorical substratum which gender and sexual identification processes work from.
Biological males reflexively identify with those who are "mirrors" of them (i.e. penis); same thing with biological females. The characteristics
(affordances) of the body bias the formation of perception, and hence, identication processes are intrinsically "lateralized" into gender
So what does this mean for today, in a world where transgenderism is taken to be a biologically "real" phenomena, when it is actually a function of
a biopsychosocial dynamic between the organism and its environment? When you understand that self and other (relational social category)
metaphorically 'guides' object relations in sexual arousal states - for instance, feeling "weak" as a male can lead to focalizing oneself as
"penetrable" i.e. vulnerable to being 'penetrated'. Penetration of course mirrors the sexual act; the person who has been abused, sexually, or
emotionally, in experiencing a sense of threat in socializing, will of course naturally experience a similar dysfunction in his sexual relations -
with "unwanted thoughts" i.e. properties which 'emerge' from feelings of weakness in one domain (social) being projected onto another interaction
- with the object relations more or less aligning (feeling the world 'penetrating you' in social relations; and homosexuality; or, conversely,
feeling complementary to the world around you, expecting reciprocity; and heterosexuality - which means "other" sexuality - or being interested in
connecting with that which is "other" from you). Being threatened by the world leads to an excessive self-focus, and thus, the adoption of
egotistical self-narratives. Homosexuality is self, or "same gender" focused.
None of this is a moral criticism but a description of the metaphorical correlations between different domains - with the social being a reference
point for the sexual; and perhaps even before the social (at 3 months) the sort of handling of the caregivers expresses metaphorically the mind-states
of the people who relate with them: soft, sensitive, focused minds, aware of the infants vulnerabilities; or rough, aggressive, self-absorbed minds,
which rough handle the infant without concern for his experience.