State of The Mind

Everywhere I go I encounter problems - stereotypical people governed by clichés formed around idealized attachments which stem from unresolved life trauma.

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 categories.

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.

The human race is to messed up to reconcile its memory trauma.
A breakaway civilisation is required.

originally posted by: Astrocyte
Everywhere I go I encounter problems - stereotypical people governed by clichés formed around idealized attachments which stem from unresolved life trauma.

With all do respect and tolerance for your need to put your ideas down on paper, I need to comment on this opening sentence.

What good in saying that problems YOU encounter are STEROTYPICAL PEOPLE fault?

Have you considered your VIEWPOINT may be lacking in some fashion.

The Buddha rebuked Migsala saying “How do you know the complexity of human character?” He went on to say that “whoever judges others digs a pit for themselves.” Those who obsess about the sins of others are usually those most in need of repentance.

These STERIOTYPICAL PEOPLE are not a homogenous blob they are individuals with worries and joys, desires and aversions just like you.

An indian (american) prayer:

"Great Spirit, May I not render Judgement upon another until I have walked for one moon in his moccasins".

a reply to: FyreByrd

I sensed no judgement. Just logical research based interpretation.

I've gathered insights to myself and others from all of this members posts. Wether I agree or not I've learned much

a reply to: Astrocyte

Thought provoking post, OP. Thanks for sharing.

originally posted by: Astrocyte
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).

It's not just about closeness and warmth, it is also about continuity. Most babies will show a preference for the left breast because there their heart aligns with their mother's. When I came back from hospital with my son, for the first few nights I slept on my back and he slept on my chest tucked under my chin, he got heavier and then moved to my left side, tucked under my arm pit (as it were). I'm a light sleeper. I knew I wouldn't roll over. I fell asleep feeding him a couple of times but didn't move an inch, woke up in the exact same position. Others are not so fortunate, so it is important that mothers are advised of the dangers so that such decisions are informed. Parenthood is exhausting, and accidents do happen.

a reply to: Astrocyte

boring

a reply to: AthlonSavage

The breakaway civ would need to encourage copious amounts of "soma" be drunk to dull the pain according to Trauma Psychology proponents.

The OP writer has fallen into the trap yet again of conflating childhood Trauma

www.traumatheory.com...-2516

The ordinary gap between what is experienced and what is said is widened in trauma, but it is unnecessary to assume that traumatic experience is neurologically or linguistically different in kind. Similarly, when traumatized people have trouble telling a narrative about their story, this is most readily explained by the limits of a culture’s narrative resources.

Stories don’t come out of nowhere. People take story lines available in the culture and use them to tell their own story. The problem with neurological stories is that they are so distant from experience as to be all but unusable except by experts who keep their distance.

a reply to: MihhAnabel2

Childhood Trauma caused you to react in such a manner - according to the OPs reasoning.

LOL