Scenarios and Emotion

We think in scenarios. Scenarios are contained in image-triggers, those that are sublated, we call abstractions. Scenarios are the building blocks of minds. Minds are collections of scenarios, grouped around a common aim, and may share a common level of abstraction. Before we examine how scenarios are built, let us use an analogy to try to visualize the human psyche. We shall use Aristotle's cosmology as an analogy for the human psyche. There is much precedent for this in hermetic philosophy, where the human psyche is pictured as concentric circles. Although it is true the hermetic philosophers preferred the Copernican system; this is outside of the scope of this essay. The Earth is the center of Aristotle's cosmology. So in our analogy the Earth shall represent the "I" the Moon shall represent the self, and the planets the emotions that carry the information. Each planetary sphere is the emotion that carries the related information. We do not need to go into what emotion each planet represents to get the visualization of our analogy. In Aristotle's cosmology each sphere is moved by the outside or bigger sphere it is contained in, till we come to the sphere of the fixed stars, which are moved directly by their desire to be like God. This scheme must be modified in our analogy. The power that creates and moves the minds is the "I" or desire or appetite to expand into time and space. So in terms of energy our analogy is the opposite of Aristotle. The energy flows from the center out, but when we examine influence Aristotle's cosmology serves us better. It is our activity in the world that influences how the minds are constructed, So even though energy flows from the center out; influence flows from the outside to the inside. It is by trying to impose our desires or will upon the world that the image-triggers, or universals of the minds are created. Of course, if a society is still in the Mythological paradigm there are no Standard minds; which would be represented by the sphere of the fixed stars in our analogy. We shall move to the principles that govern the creation of the scenarios that make up the minds. We shall begin with Standard minds, instead of my usual procedure of starting with Individual minds, and work our way in, instead of working our way out. As I said the energy of the human psyche emanates from the Individual mind, the influence moves from the outside in; The mind most concerned with the environment to the Individual mind, or self. So let us examine Standard minds. Standard minds are the most removed from the self (Individual mind), they are also are subject to the most rigid rules of all the minds. Of course, cultures that have not advanced beyond the mythological paradigm, do not generate Standard minds, they generate Private minds as their most outward edge. Standard minds are the most rule governed of the minds. The two most important rules for the generation of Standard minds are: Parmenides's invention of the law of non-contradiction, and William of Ockam's invention of the law of parsimony or Ockam's razor. Like all minds, Standard minds are dependent on the pragmatic principle; they must work to achieve the aims to the agent that uses the mind. So let us proceed,to how the law of non-contradiction and Ockam's Razor generate Standard minds. We shall start with the law of non-contradiction, since it is historically first and the most important rule. Without the law of non-contradiction there would not be any scenarios to be turned into Standard minds. The law of non-contradiction was the invention that caused the crisis in ancient Greek culture, that we call, the Greek Enlightenment. The crisis reached its peak in Protagoras, when posited the riddle: if two men stand in a breeze and one says the breeze is warm, an the other says the cool, who is right? Protagoras answered famously they are both right. This of course was an unacceptable answer to those who want absolute truth. So Plato and others applied the law of non-contradiction, and came up with the answer that truth must be what is universal to everyone. So was born the objective or real world, and the subject-object split. This of course has been one of the main concerns of western philosophy. All the feelings and emotions that were limited to the individual became subjective,and what could be universalized became objective. This became the the purpose of the law of non-contradiction. The law of non-contradiction is dependent on the pragmatic principle; it must work. When an activity is objective it must work for everyone. It could be argued that some of what the law of non-contradiction objectifies, are only explanations, and so are not subject to the pragmatic principle. The problem with the argument is for a scenario or theory to be considered scientific, it must give accurate predictions. This is one of the fundamental presuppositions of science. A good scientific theory must give good predictions. There needs to be more: Ockam's razor. Why? An excellent example of the need for Ockam's razor is the history of the planetary system. Ptolemy's model of the planetary system did give accurate predictions, so why was there a need for Copernicus's theory? Ptolemy's theory was base on the older model that a theory should conform to appearances. The trouble is appearances are often misleading; there is no God's eye view to consult. Set us probe a little deeper into the difference between scientific theories and myth. The reason for this is because myths often masquerade as scientific or objective theories. Even though myths do not give predictions, that has not stopped believers in myths from trying to impose their mythic views on individuals and society. I shall use a modern myth as an example; that of Schelling's place of reason in the cosmos. (Readers may want to consult my essay "Fichte and Schelling Part three") If there is no prediction involved only explanation it is probably a myth. Myths also seek to explain natural phenomenon, and or the place of humans in the cosmos. Back to Schelling, the myth Schelling came up with to justify reason in human society is one of the most influential myths of modern times, thus making it a good myth to examine. Schelling's myth from his book "A System of Transcendental Idealism 1800" is the basis for Marxism and modern Totalitarian movements, including Progressivism. To construct his myth Schelling went shopping in the history of western philosophy for ideas to construct his myth. Of course when Schelling decided to create his myth, he already knew the conclusion he wanted. Besides making no predictions, Ockam's razor shows the mythic elements of Schelling's theory of reason in human society.Schelling gives much more than is needed to explain the place of reason in society, and many of these theories have now evidence; such as the ancient doctrine of Recollection. There is no evidence that humans recollect heir knowledge, instead of learning. Although Schelling's myth can pass the law of non-contradiction, it cannot pass Ockam's razor. There are too many extraneous and superfluous parts to the theory. So we see that there are two types of explanation, but only one can claim to be scientific (Standard minds). So for a scenario to be a Standard mind it must be able to pass the two tests being the law of non-contradiction and Ockam's razor. And of course, the scenario actually has to work; whether it is plumbing or rocket science. We now move to Private minds. We have already examined the difference between the scenarios of Private minds and Standard minds, so now we shall move to the difference between Private minds and Individual minds. Private minds are the minds we spend the most our time using. These are the scenarios of family, religion, and national identity. Private minds of course admit of mythic scenarios. Private minds do not usually claim universality. It is the mind and scenarios that unite people into groups. Private minds may also have only a temporary existence. As when a group of people join together to accomplish some goal only to disband when the goal is achieved . Private minds have the greatest flexibility of all the minds; containing both subjective and objective elements. The purpose of Private minds is to unite people together. They do this by shared information on shared emotions. Religious and national symbols are a good example, and also illustrate the lack of universality of Private minds. A Russian and a Mexican do not have the same emotions over national symbols. The Russian bear may give a Russian a feeling of pride, while doing nothing for the Mexican. The Russian bear may give a Pole a sense of fear or forbidding, due to the history between Russia and Poland. Another example is religious symbols; the Cross of Christianity and the Crescent of Islam certainly provoke different emotions and reactions in Christians and Muslims. The Private mind is a continuum between Individual minds and Standard minds on the opposite ends of the spectrum. The rules or principles that govern the creation of Private minds are much looser and less formal than that of Standard minds.The most important rule governing the creation of Private minds is the information on a scenario must invoke the same emotion in a group of people. The goal of Private minds are also very flexible, they can be temporary or more permanent, they can involve a large number of people or a small number, etc. Private minds of course, influence and grow out of the Individual mind; it is more a relationship of reciprocity than causality between Private minds and Individual minds. Private minds influence the creation of Individual minds, but the energy and the form comes from the Individual minds. For it is individuals that combine to create Private minds. Yet, and individual is of course influenced by her family, religion, and national identity. This is why Private minds are in many ways a mirror of the Individual minds that make up the Private mind.Private minds are individuals united by common emotion attached to common information. Private minds also have the greatest range on the continuum between subjectivity and objectivity (remember I am using the term "objectivity" only to refer to information that can be universalized). The stronger the emotion, the more bonding the mind is for its members. The more a Private mind tends towards objectivity the less bonding, and the more prone the mind is to cause alienation. This is why a regiment of soldiers can be very bonded, although the individual member may have very different feelings towards the government for which they fight. We now move to the Individual mind. The Individual mind is the self. The more we view ourselves in society (Private minds), the less alienation. The more of the self that is projected into society, the stronger the sense of community of the individual that make up the society. It should be easy to see the reciprocity of Individual minds and the Private minds that make up a society. It is the energy of individuals that powers a culture, the more they identify with each other the greater the power of the society. Some may assume that Individual minds have the same flexibility of Private minds, but this is a mistake. As I have said in other essays humans have a default setting that may be modified, but not eliminated. The default setting of human nature is tribal society; with all the familiar primate politics. Humans can be civilized, but not domesticated. What happens when humans are civilized is the tribal nature of humans is broadened in scope. This broadening is both qualitative and quantitative. The qualitative broadening allows for more members thus there is a quantitative broadening. An example is when Men"s clubs that were founded to serve particular profession had to allow women of the profession in. There had to be a qualitative broadening to allow female members; women commonly take offence to practices that men do not care about. This of course, caused alienation among many of the older male members, and thus the opposition. So the larger and more diverse a society is the more the tension shall be between civil order and a sense of community. END