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.