Howdy all,
I heard recently from a friend that I'm displaying a pattern of "philosophical density" in waves ... on ... off ... on ... off ... and so forth. The comment was preceded by an acknowlegement, correctly stated, that my tendency can be to become entralled with an idea and pursue it almost obsessively, yet in doing so leaving some folks behind as I've left behind what seems to be the basic form I speak from. Yet this is only true on the surface.
Yes it is true that I am entralled with certain ideas and pursue them almost obsessively, but always from within the frame of the basics ... which for me remain fully grounded in the embodied sense of self.
The basics are essential to build upon, as the entire structure of what I've come to call the MythoSelf(tm) Process rests solidly on this foundation. What has occured most recently for me - oh, maybe six or eight months in coming, has been the remarkable clarity I perceive within the model in regard to this foundation. In it's simplest form ...
The essence of all experienc is somatic.
Yet that is a false statement standing on its own. I'd have to state clearly what I mean by somatic, which as I use the word refers to the entire physical organism and how it's formed in the moment of the experience being referenced. This, using the language I prefer, is the ontological ground of the individual, i.e.: the entirety of their physicality including the entire neural network though which they perceive and process sensation and thought.
This later part the processing of sensation and thought gives rise to a semantic form. This form, the semantic, gives rise to what the individual perceives something (an event, an object, an idea ...) means. Yet of course this meaning is applied to that thing by them. This is a subjective process built on the intersubjective experience that contains the individual and forms their subjective stance or perceptions.
As I'm using it the semantic form is any way of representing the experince and/or expressing it that is not the actual somatic representation of the experience itself, even another somatic represenation of it. So the semantic form could be the words used to describe an experience, or abstract symbols used to represent the experience, or a model, vocalization, movement ... whatever have you that is intended to represent the experience.
One of the most powerful aspects of the semantic form is the ability to represent an experience that hasn't yet happened. This can be fed back to the system in a way that generates the somatic response that is perfectly matched to the created semantic form of the experience that hasn't happened yet. This feedback has the effect of generating the somatic form as though the experience was in fact experienced already regardless of the reality of it happening or not.
The semantic form establishes the meaning of things for an individual giving rise to their subjective perceptions and beyond that what they think things mean - as well as generating a reference in the somatic form in reference to the semantic form.
Now if you'll go back you'll see I've already stated that this occurs on the ground of the somatic form the individual holds - the ontological ground - the essence of their being in the world. However, consciously they attach as much weight of "being" to the secondary semantic form of perception and meaning - "thinking" that is ...
So here are the "philosophically dense" basics ... somatic and semantic form ... the technology I call "Soma-Semantic(tm) Modeling" and what the Mythogenic Self(tm) Process rests upon.
Yet there is more that is much, much simpler when it's experienced and not described. Words can indeed generate experience or be used to describe as I have above. However the true essence of the Mythogenic Self(tm) Process is the experience of it NOT the description of it. Regardless of my penchant at times to write like an academic the experience of the Mythogenic Self(tm) Process has very little to do with intellectualizing it. It must be embodied to be experienced.
The audiocasts at http://mythoself.blogspot.com come much, much closer to capturing this essence of the experience. The verbalization of the form brings it much closer to being present for the listerner than these words do the reader. What I know from experience though is that the reader once acquainted with the actual experience often has the sense of the form of the experience revivified from reading these words - as is true of all words these are just reminders and pointers towards the actual experience to be had or had already.
The magic of the interweaving between the somatic and the semantic forms is the exquisite referencing of direct experience that emerging from their entanglement - the "mythic form."
Within this model I've found myself committed to for so long now I've realized that the mythic form is sacred, not just to me but to humanity (IMO). This is the message and the gift of Joseph Campbell ... the transport to the sacred sphere of myth in the hands of a masterful guide. Joseph is the ferryman of Myth and willingly crosses the threshold beyond belief for all those will to journey with him.
Next we meet I'll do my best to honor the late, great Professor Campbell and use some of his flare in retelling this story beyond description, beyond belief and into the sacred body direct.
Best regards,
Joseph
PS - My teleseminar "Beyond Belief ...(tm)" - A Journey into the MythoSelf(tm) Process is happening this week on Thursday the 27th at 2:00 PM and again at 7:00 PM EST (that 14:00 and 19:00 -5 GMT). It's absolutely free but the lines are limited if you are interested get registered ASAP as we are almost fully booked for both time slots ... get yourself in before there's no more room. Looking forward to having you there ...
Get the information and register for the teleseminar at: http://www.beyondnlp.com/mythoexperience.com
Tuesday, October 25
Thursday, October 20
Functional Creation ...
Folks,
I want to remind anyone who’s reading this that I DO NOT propose any kind of “Truth” or “Truths” (note the upper case “T” if you will), just suggestions for your considered consideration. Essentially these are all “models” and as such barely shadows of the “Reality” (again note upper case “R”) they point towards.
Models are designed to allow us to consider specific aspects of “Reality” from a specific perspective creating new “realities” (lower case “r”) as we go. I spent a good deal of time back a few weeks ago differentiating between “Truth” and “Reality” and “truth” and “reality” if this is unfamiliar to you please feel free to review those particular blogs. (Note: I began this with my blog entitled: “Mind as well ... SOCIAL ONTOLOGY 101,” you can view it if you’d like at: http://blognostra.blogspot.com/2005/07/mind-as-well-social-ontology-101.html )
In the service of my recent explorations with you into conceptual modeling I thought it might be interesting to share something much nearer the center of the modeling I myself have been doing in regard to operating intentionally. I posted something earlier today to another closed list of mine which I’m copying out to you here with some additional editing ... I’d love to know what you think. Is this any closer for any of you to how the model of “reality” seems to be as far as you know?
Regarding the tendency to attempt to fit things into a structure that’s familiar or comfortable there is a human tendency towards building typologies, such as the Graves Model I presented in one form a few days ago. Remember it’s just a model and yet it comes from Dr. Graves observations about individuals and societies/cultures and how they have evolved through time as it seemed to him from the perspective he was taking. What I “added” was a bit of a discussion about the neurobiological development that may have accompanied such observations. Let me take it a step or two further into the neurobiology of how we seem to be organized to perceive the world.
The human perceptual nervous system (the entire system by which we sense, perceive and encounter the world) is designed in relation to pattern from every indication. We are basically at a perceptual level “pattern recognition creatures.” There are two possible diametric boundary conditions which we could choose to apply to the construction of these patterns. The boundary of exclusion or the boundary of inclusion. The natural perceptual default position is either “this is NOT like that” or “this is LIKE that.” In terms of meta-programs this would be phrased as “sameness” or “difference” and there is a tendency to a default pattern.
When in the ‘inhibitory’ mode the system will tend to default to “difference,” or “this is NOT like that.” It excludes in favor of safety and security only letting in what is known most intimately. The result of encountering new information is the default to cognitive dissonance and more inhibition.
When the system is in the “excitatory” mode it will tend to default to “sameness” or “this is LIKE that.” It includes in favor of expansion and exploration letting in more data from a position of comfort. The result of encountering new information is the default to creativity and “what if” scenarios built around possibility.
This can be seen as a function of learning how to operate at an appropriate or most useful neurobiological level of awareness. Literally learning to access and use the various abilities of the multi-structured brain to develop the data in an appropriate or most useful way.
First the information comes in ... and it’s just sensory data, nothing more or less. Then having become aware of the sensory experience of the data the system becomes primed in relation to the data and the outcome held. Only now is any judgment about the data made – judgment in this case applying to the relational nature of the data to the outcome. This is primarily a cerebellum based, or “cerebellic” response, not exclusively so and yet most centered in the functionality that the cerebellum is best designed to operate. This is a very fast operation occurring in nanoseconds, layered onto the primary state experience of the individual with simple binary judgments being generated in relation to state and outcome: e.g.: good/bad, right/wrong, friend/foe, towards/away ...
Now the system is “re-primed” and tuned to the cerebellic response – i.e.: binary judgment in relation to outcome. This is followed by a cerebral response nanoseconds later where meaning in relation to the data and the outcome is generated out of the “ground” of the re-primed systemic experience of the data. This will generate a semi-conscious or conscious behavioral response to the data.
This modeling of the perceptual processing structure of the brain is intimately linked with the entire perceptual nervous systems which receives data from the sensory organs AND the motor processes which translate this perceptual processing into behavioral response. What I’m offering here is the simple observation that what we think is intimately connected to how we think it. The ability to consciously develop our ability to use the full capacity of our perceptual nervous system’s potential is an evolutionary step I’m proposing is worth taking or at least taking a look at.
I close with a quote often bandied about in NLP circles ... “There is no substitute for clean sensory filters” ... which I’d like to re-phrase to ... “There is no substitute for being fully present to the perceptual unfolding.”
Best regards,
Joseph Riggio, Ph.D.
Evolutionary Ontologist
P.S. - I hope you are enjoying or at least finding interesting these most recent blogs. It’s my intention to lay some groundwork here for the comments I’ve already made earlier as well as some additional comments I intend to be sharing going forward. Mostly these comments have been and will be observations in the domain of social ontology ... yet taken from an evolutionary standpoint or perspective. Understanding the power of perception I thought to be a good overlay onto the social ontological framework I’d positioned earlier on ... let me know what you think ... there so much I have to learn.
I want to remind anyone who’s reading this that I DO NOT propose any kind of “Truth” or “Truths” (note the upper case “T” if you will), just suggestions for your considered consideration. Essentially these are all “models” and as such barely shadows of the “Reality” (again note upper case “R”) they point towards.
Models are designed to allow us to consider specific aspects of “Reality” from a specific perspective creating new “realities” (lower case “r”) as we go. I spent a good deal of time back a few weeks ago differentiating between “Truth” and “Reality” and “truth” and “reality” if this is unfamiliar to you please feel free to review those particular blogs. (Note: I began this with my blog entitled: “Mind as well ... SOCIAL ONTOLOGY 101,” you can view it if you’d like at: http://blognostra.blogspot.com/2005/07/mind-as-well-social-ontology-101.html )
In the service of my recent explorations with you into conceptual modeling I thought it might be interesting to share something much nearer the center of the modeling I myself have been doing in regard to operating intentionally. I posted something earlier today to another closed list of mine which I’m copying out to you here with some additional editing ... I’d love to know what you think. Is this any closer for any of you to how the model of “reality” seems to be as far as you know?
Regarding the tendency to attempt to fit things into a structure that’s familiar or comfortable there is a human tendency towards building typologies, such as the Graves Model I presented in one form a few days ago. Remember it’s just a model and yet it comes from Dr. Graves observations about individuals and societies/cultures and how they have evolved through time as it seemed to him from the perspective he was taking. What I “added” was a bit of a discussion about the neurobiological development that may have accompanied such observations. Let me take it a step or two further into the neurobiology of how we seem to be organized to perceive the world.
The human perceptual nervous system (the entire system by which we sense, perceive and encounter the world) is designed in relation to pattern from every indication. We are basically at a perceptual level “pattern recognition creatures.” There are two possible diametric boundary conditions which we could choose to apply to the construction of these patterns. The boundary of exclusion or the boundary of inclusion. The natural perceptual default position is either “this is NOT like that” or “this is LIKE that.” In terms of meta-programs this would be phrased as “sameness” or “difference” and there is a tendency to a default pattern.
When in the ‘inhibitory’ mode the system will tend to default to “difference,” or “this is NOT like that.” It excludes in favor of safety and security only letting in what is known most intimately. The result of encountering new information is the default to cognitive dissonance and more inhibition.
When the system is in the “excitatory” mode it will tend to default to “sameness” or “this is LIKE that.” It includes in favor of expansion and exploration letting in more data from a position of comfort. The result of encountering new information is the default to creativity and “what if” scenarios built around possibility.
This can be seen as a function of learning how to operate at an appropriate or most useful neurobiological level of awareness. Literally learning to access and use the various abilities of the multi-structured brain to develop the data in an appropriate or most useful way.
First the information comes in ... and it’s just sensory data, nothing more or less. Then having become aware of the sensory experience of the data the system becomes primed in relation to the data and the outcome held. Only now is any judgment about the data made – judgment in this case applying to the relational nature of the data to the outcome. This is primarily a cerebellum based, or “cerebellic” response, not exclusively so and yet most centered in the functionality that the cerebellum is best designed to operate. This is a very fast operation occurring in nanoseconds, layered onto the primary state experience of the individual with simple binary judgments being generated in relation to state and outcome: e.g.: good/bad, right/wrong, friend/foe, towards/away ...
Now the system is “re-primed” and tuned to the cerebellic response – i.e.: binary judgment in relation to outcome. This is followed by a cerebral response nanoseconds later where meaning in relation to the data and the outcome is generated out of the “ground” of the re-primed systemic experience of the data. This will generate a semi-conscious or conscious behavioral response to the data.
- For instance if the judgment is below the threshold of full behavioral responsiveness, as in moving towards or away from the data – i.e.: it’s just not important enough to trip the behavior response potential switch in the brain/body system so it’s perceived as a neutral stimulus – the color of the walls in a room might be an example of this , then there might only be the most peripheral conscious recognition of that we could call semi-conscious. E.g.: noticing the color of the walls of the room at all.
- If however the judgment is above the threshold level necessary to fire off the switch to behavioral responsiveness there may be a behavioral response which remains only semi-conscious. This response may reside below the threshold of full conscious awareness generating an active, conscious behavioral response. By example this might be walking into an unfamiliar restaurant and selecting a place to sit without really considering it actively. In essence “finding” that you’ve chosen a place to sit without thinking about it in a fully conscious way beforehand. The system is pre-programmed to response to the subtle signals in the environment and react on what might be called “auto-pilot” directing you to choose a favored location in which to sit. In this case it may be only “after the fact” that you’ll notice you even made a choice, and yet upon consideration recognizing the suitability of the choice for you.
- Then there are and will be judgments which reach beyond the threshold level necessary to trip a fully active behavioral response of which you are conscious even as you are acting. This is an immediate conscious behavioral response to the sensory data present. An example here might be seeing someone you know and moving towards them across a crowded room to engage with them. Or smelling something that offensive and moving away without having to consider it twice. These kinds of responses are instantaneous and take advantage of the deep integration of the sensory response system, the ability of the cerebellum’s structures to make virtually instantaneous judgments and the cerebral, conscious response to action. This is a “knowing” response to external data based upon preformed internal criteria sets.
- Finally, for my example there is what I’ll call pre-meditated action which reaches further into the cerebral process and is processed in the frontal lobes where “future action” is considered and organized. This extends the process to include full decision-making about something that hasn’t happened yet. In many cases where the sensory data in relation to which the response will be organized doesn’t yet exist in a realized, manifest form. Yet the system has processed a range of responses in relation to the possible range of sensory data that might and even most likely will be encountered along the continuum being considered. This is the domain of intentionality and where we possess the capacity to bring into being our intentions, this is where intentional decision-making and action reside.
- The integration of the functional properties of the perceptual nervous system organized in relation to the intentional form primes the system to react and respond to specific data encountered to bring about that intentional outcome. This includes priming the system to sort for the data in the environment most useful in relation to bringing about the outcome, as well as noticing for data in the environment most likely to thwart the bringing about of the outcome. In an integrated intentional system there is no default to notice for likeness or difference but an open perceptual system capable of noticing for likeness and difference. This allows the system to remain open without defaulting to inhibitory avoidance or excitatory undifferentiated curiosity.
This modeling of the perceptual processing structure of the brain is intimately linked with the entire perceptual nervous systems which receives data from the sensory organs AND the motor processes which translate this perceptual processing into behavioral response. What I’m offering here is the simple observation that what we think is intimately connected to how we think it. The ability to consciously develop our ability to use the full capacity of our perceptual nervous system’s potential is an evolutionary step I’m proposing is worth taking or at least taking a look at.
I close with a quote often bandied about in NLP circles ... “There is no substitute for clean sensory filters” ... which I’d like to re-phrase to ... “There is no substitute for being fully present to the perceptual unfolding.”
Best regards,
Joseph Riggio, Ph.D.
Evolutionary Ontologist
P.S. - I hope you are enjoying or at least finding interesting these most recent blogs. It’s my intention to lay some groundwork here for the comments I’ve already made earlier as well as some additional comments I intend to be sharing going forward. Mostly these comments have been and will be observations in the domain of social ontology ... yet taken from an evolutionary standpoint or perspective. Understanding the power of perception I thought to be a good overlay onto the social ontological framework I’d positioned earlier on ... let me know what you think ... there so much I have to learn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)