Intertemporal shifts of person's universal subconscious' modalities induced by the diversity of individual conscious' cognitions

REQUEST TO THE READER: the following may not always be strictly consistent with the conventional terms, concepts and notions of psychology and philosophy; please rather follow the line of thought herein.

The subconscious mind is non-differentiated and common for and shared by all. Its unit is prevalent mode or modality (i.e. the individual’s stance at a given moment of time on his/her relation to his/her person, the environment/reality and the schemes of interaction thereof) which changes from one point in time to the second. The unit of the conscious mind is the individual person with his/her cognitions making up the cognitive field. If we imagine a space where subconscious mind's modalities are 2-dimensional planes, the different individuals' conscious' cognitions can be considered as the ACTIVE material filling the space or room between them (which at the same time has force structure affecting the dynamic disposition of these planes). The conscious thus can be viewed as "irritations" or "distortions" or "interferences" or simply the stuff filling the gaps between modality transitions or shifts. The gaps and accordingly the shifts are induced by risk-averse profile of the cognition of the person to different signals coming from reality channeled through subjective experience. However this is not the core reason or root cause of the shift but its mechanics. Meanwhile, as the subconscious’ products have no moral valence the conscious acts as the watchdog and here it comes to spoil the party. The key point here is that positive modalities are extremely empowering for the person and the other persons in the loop of one single group or stratum alike. However the problem is that the positive modalities are often quite difficult to maintain - regressive repressive modality shifts are taking place most of the time.

The root cause of repressive modality shift is the diversity of conscious cognitions among different people i.e. products of subconscious having undergone “processing” through reality which makes it differentiated and multiplied i.e. diversified. People are used to interact and have exchange via the cross-correlation matrices of cognitions i.e. products of subconscious not of the subconscious itself. This is normal and objectively justified as the person has a wide array of needs including the need for unique self/identity, need for personal emotions and feelings, etc. This way the person feels him/herself real and in reality. This way he/she satisfies his/her need of “tasting” the one type of substance – matter. And the more information and hence presumption of close-to-infinite space he/she respectively receives and forms the stronger is getting his/her confidence that there is ENOUGH room for “personalized matter” of all and including his/her. And the more “successful” or, more accurately, the more extensive this game becomes the less is getting his/her reference to and remembrance of the other end of substance – the subconscious mind which is in this regard  the same as the idea. Two critically opposite examples in this regard are the modern world with its abundance of information and respectively close-to-infinite quasi-space, on one side, and the ancient Greek society with its fantastically valid predicates shaping private and public life, on the other. In particular, we can observe that in the ancient society of Greece there was a strict “regulatory framework” of consented endorsed subconscious modality “distribution”, e.g. the system of values, etc.

The need for personal diversification of cognitions is a natural one for the human and there is nothing we can do about it and we must not either. Here the principal point is that relying on and exploiting only and excessively the cognition end can bring to a dead-end. The reason is that it does not account for the other side or end of the substance. This means that after a critical mass is gained a catastrophe can occur destructing all and everything.

However, the good news is that this is not the case in today’s world or at least is partially the case but is watched for and regulated. This is my feeling and also hope. I mean I see that the idea/mind end of the substance is also existent. It is just “scattered” I would call it. At the same time, I believe that if it becomes less scattered and more prevalent or at least more often practiced that would do just better for the world of humans. And my next belief is that this can be done with Pareto move.

 
In the meantime, I can see that this is hindered objectively by the structural “technical exchange-friendliness” of cognitions of different people and hence more chances of concentration as opposed to subconscious which is by nature and definition individual and not much open technically even though in content and essence it is much more universal and common for all. The most powerful “technical” tool of all times for bridging the subconscious minds of people has always been the arts, literature and culture. The art/culture/literature is THE exchange mechanism for this.

Essay on a new view on matter-mind dilemma

Recently I was thinking of actualization and what it really means and entails. Expressing my great tributes to Kurt Goldstein and Abraham Maslow for introduction of this term into psychology and I would even say philosophy as well (the original term was self-actualization).


From conventional philosophy we know there are people who prioritize idea/mind and who prioritize matter. Or more accurately – who distinguish them as to what the reason/source is and what the result/outcome/product is or in other words what the cause is and what the effect is. Respectively they are called idealists and materialists. However there is a big trick or confusion in all this.


Idealists are mainly concerned with the idea/mind - ideas and how important they are. Materialists on the contrary are more occupied with the priority of matter or materia and how important and decisive it is in everything that exists, we do, feel, understand, etc. However the link or connection or I should call it TRANSITION between these two is virtually always ignored or skipped.


What is meant by this? The key point or question is - what kind of transition mode or method or practice (if any) is there between these two ends? One must admit that this way or another there must be some kind of linkage or communication between these two and hence they are to be connected or linked somehow as otherwise it will sound too stupid to talk about only either of them even in one single situation or case.


The clue to solving the problem is the answer to the question for each specific case – is there a clear and comprehensive urge (or inclination/propensity), on one side, and responsibility, on the other, defined, undertaken and effectively in place on part of the given individual to establish and apply interconnection between idea-centeredness and matter-centeredness. For most people we should say that there is no structured or at least objectified conceptual framework of such exercise. However, whenever it is there within an individual, we can think of this individual as an actualizist rather than idealist or materialist.


What is meant by the conceptual system or framework underlying actualizism? The person is always in search of intelligible transitions from matter to idea and vice versa. However there is in most cases temptation to construct homo-quality pseudo-transitions, i.e. to construct idea from idea and matter from matter with no cross-quality mixes or genuine transitions. The former are pseudo or false transitions as the genuine transitions can be only hetero-quality.


A comparison can be made with the dilemma of lawfulness in terms of statistics vs. in terms of “pure cases”. Lawfulness in terms of statistics is pseudo-transition of matter-to-matter nature. Lawfulness in terms of common laws of dynamics underlying pure cases is matter-to-idea genuine transition which we can also call organic transition. It is the exercise of conceptual construction of deductive rules and is, in essence, analysis. An example of exercises of idea-to-idea  pseudo-transitions is most ideologies of different kinds and they are by far speculative.


The opposite exercise of synthesis of matter from idea is much more complicated and is sometimes of “productive engineering” nature and absolutely useful for management of reality.


The problem of constructing qualified hetero-quality transition is that it needs to be structured. There is no other way of attaining it. If experience of pure cases is structured it is possible, though not always, to have a hetero-quality genuine transition. At the same time surprising enough there is no way to handle this task without experiencing pure cases i.e. with just “ideas”, however many they are. The reason is the truth that IDEA AND MATTER ARE NEVER DICHOTOMIC let alone ANTAGONISTS (notwithstanding the common understanding and notion), they are just DIFFERENT by different criteria and CANNOT and ARE NOT TO BE COMPARED with each other – they are of different qualities or, as one can say, in different dimensions.


The mind of an actualizist seeks continuous expansion and extension of the two-dimensional matrix where one dimension is the breadth of understanding of each and every pure case and the second dimension is the length i.e. the number of DIFFERENT pure cases. Both dimensions are important but my guess is that the former is more important ontologically and epistemologically.


The actualizist transforms the matter into idea through the “pure case” mechanism and idea to matter through a much more complicated process of productive thinking and similar elaborations. In particular, for the actualizist the notions of bare idealism and bare materialism no longer apply.


For generalization i.e. matter-to-idea transition the actualizist generalizes the pure cases not through the mere PROPERTIES common for different cases but the common LAWS underlying these properties. So this is another good example of matter-to-idea interaction i.e. drawing common or universal ideas out of the common properties of matter.

Time - how we think of it.

People, especially of the Eastern/Asian mindset, think that time is a derivative of the life flow. We (as Asians) view time as just another coordinate or parameter or just a context of our daily affairs, dealings, work, leisure, etc., just like our location in space, emotional background, health status, number of people or friends surrounding us, weather, clothes we are wearing at a given moment of time, etc. The good or bad news is that time itself is the meta life or meta matter - simply because any materialization of matter has time structure. For people, for whom time is just a funny joke time is just like a ruler (линейка) and these people are merely recording or ticking the mileage marks just like on highways. For these people the time is fixed and there is no flow of time - instead, they are moving along the timeline and they mistakenly think that THEY CHANGE ANYTHING. People who SEE time moving have a different approach to time. They try to ATTEND TO time and notice things changing DUE TO FLOW OF TIME. People cannot make or create anything new - they can only DISCOVER something NEW TO THEM, which have always been there. This can be done only if and when the person CHOOSES the time. Choosing the time is not a simple exercise. And for 99% of people and for 99.99% of time people go the other way round - they leave the time to choose them. But the time never chooses anything - he just forgets about these people and so they found themselves walking or running on their imaginery highway with dead milestones of time. People think that the speed of running is decisive for the magnitude of outcome. No running brings about outcome. The truth is that when you are running you are running along ONLY one single time line and ON ONE SINGLE TIMELINE you can find only ONE, at best, copy of each and everything. When you choose time you are running along and next to and in front of and behind and on and under whatever you want WITH THE HELP OF TIME that you just chose. Everything has a time structure in our conventional understanding but the correct statement is that it is time that has numberless structures in terms of numberless factors. Time is a matrix of possible starts, scenarios/paths, outcomes, etc. Another mathematical analog is distribution – i.e. possible values with respective probabilities. Time can be thought of as the term "negative space" from the domain of visual perception (for whomever this is a new term - you can make a simple search in Google or Wikipedia for definition/explanation). People think of time as numbers - numbers on the clock display roll back after one full cycle and that's it. People are used to think of time as a model in which there are REPEATING HOMOGENOUS minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years which are represented just as numbers. This is too far from being more or less accurate model as far as time is concerned. Time has nothing to do with numbers which are - even worse - RECURRING. This model of time has arisen from the biologic habit of humans and other animal life to act in daytime and sleep in nighttime as well as other periodics in conditions of the environment (like seasons). However this model has emerged from the phenomena of inorganic and unconscious life. Therefore it is not appropriate for the mind/intellect to think in these terms. Simple and fair enough? Think about this! From this point of view it seems just unbelievable that the human of the 21st century (!) thinks of time as a nice circle of sectors on the clock display or a dull sequence of digits on the calendar?

The good news is however that time warp (искривление времени) is possible – in psychological sense (let alone the physicsJ). When you allow yourself to drop out of time you free yourself from the helpless exercise and habit of following the time line and start warping the time. More specifically, by dropping out of time we mean modifying the structure of time in terms of the reality’s content and its flow. You liberate yourself from the belief that the time structure is shaped by time. This is a great misconception. The structure of time is not shaped by merely the time itself, it is though more often is not but can be shaped by the person himself. Bringing a rough example. You decided to complete a task by Friday evening. Then, thanks to some occasional nice mood that came to you Friday morning or which you have brought to yourself by yourself deliberately, you suddenly completed the task in the first half of the day. So what happened? You stepped ahead of time. You changed the time structure. You also help the reality in that way – you release the burden or tension from it by discontinuing passively expecting the realization of the value of the given point of time – the reality is not there to fulfill your goals or desires, so it suffers tension coming from your urge. The reality itself does not have feelings or emotions or mind – it cannot understand the notion of goal or desire or urge that is why it transforms your desire or urge into a mere expectation for you.

Here in this regard, we can state that people very often confuse REALITY and TIME. The human can sense the reality and it is exactly what he does for the 99% of its time but he can really sense the time only when he leaves the TIME OF REALITY. By releasing the grip from time you thereby inject soul or mind into time and it starts working for your benefit and in particular creating new reality using the material of irreality which is way richer than its younger “blue-collar” brother. Time can also be thought of as CHANGE of/in reality. Similarly, in ONE SINGLE reality there is no time defined (except for on the clock or the calendar).

Much like in relativist theory, with the case of absolute, non-relative speed of light – time embarks (if ever) on you and locks back to you and it performs and lives only in your closed system. Your time is just a mere reality for the other and vice versa. Your time does not make any sense to others and vice versa. So the only resource you have in your hands is YOUR time not the others’. Times of all make up the reality. Like with agent and spy dilemma – agent is ours, spy is theirs (their agent). So here it is the same, time is ours, reality is theirs (their times). The means of doing all this is productive thinking.

For Asian/Eastern mindset, the treatment of time is such that we think that even if you do not do anything the time will still elapse, i.e. you will still encounter changes in reality, and if you are "tough" you should hurry and manage to do something which will then act as objects of encounter for others (i.e. changes). This loop is stronger in the Asian context because of closer family, relative and friendship ties. However, the problem with that is the principal inconsistency of times of different people - even be them the same family members. Another example of such setup is why the time value of money is so often failed to be understood by businessmen of this mindset and this often even results in failure to understand the value of money altogether! Instead, they are good at hurrying with AFFAIRS not with TIME. Protestant Europeans, on the contrary, assign great value to time. They know that if you do nothing the time will NOT flow, i.e. nothing will happen, nothing will change in the reality - at least in the region thereof in one's immediate adjacency. So they perform - so that time can flow and perform. They somehow (individualism, cultural values, etc.) have come up to demonstrate principally less sticking to realities of others, instead, focusing more on their individual times.

The present - how it is perceived by the human.

The fundamental fallacy of all times that has not been revealed till now is that the present is real. But the truth is that only past and future are real – the present is not real for most of the time. The present is unknown and not perceived most of the time unlike past and future which are fully perceived. By the present we mean the very existence, presence or the chances that it can affect the past and future in what the latter mean to the self. The present exists only when and to the degree the future is not shaped by the past – only in this case we can speak of existence of present. Otherwise, past becomes future without any principal (structural) change or modification i.e. without obtaining new properties/qualities - it just undergoes transformation due to time.  In a sense the present is the most lost time for the person. The present is the only time when the soul can peform but it often gets lost when the present is lost. For the conscious the past is represented by structured and objectified experience and the future represents a set of structured logical inductive and deductive forecasts. So there is a mistery of presence on one hand and fear of presence on the other. The self-preservation instinct operates in the present and crucially limits the psyche of the person. In a sense the future is equal to past and person always tries to get lost between these two in his present. He knows how future becomes past and seeks to have a smooth transformation of future into past. The present is a great challenge for the person. As the person does not know whether the present is going to bring about positive or negative balance as well as the extent of such outcome, he tries to manage that intersection as much as possible because the person as he thinks can interact with the matter only in the present and can exercise a certain degree of control over reality. The person thus, in the present, is preoccupied with the task of interacting with matter, however funnily enough he can in the present interact only with the matter of past and future. In the present he has no means of interacting with the matter because in the present he is only on his “own side” of reality, in other words in the present he can do only what comes out of his inner self, and then what comes next i.e. interaction with matter is already past as is essentially merely a feedback. That is why the only way the present can be perceived is to focus on one’s own inner self rather than the surrounding world and its different materializations which have either been already reflected on in and as the past or not been felt yet with either of senses while still having been in existence objectively no matter the person has felt them with either of senses or not. In this regard there is no way to apply the notions of past, present and future to bare matter but to changes/modifications thereof. This is the meaning of present from the point of view of the human.