If we consider consciousness as a stratified construct (like a cake), at the bottom lies our mechanistic nervous system. Because this primitive system is physical, and because it exists virtually unchanged in lower-order organisms, we can -- and have -- studied it extensively. This is the domain of touch-response and physical pain. Let's refer to this as layer 1.
On layer 2 rests our primitive subconscious. This is where our mechanistic mind interacts on a base-level with neurotransmitters. Citing the work of J. Nestor, this system is intrinsically connected, perhaps as a mediator, between layers 1 and 3. Layer 2 is correlated with physical drug addiction, including forum addiction.
Layer 3 is where our true animal brain rests. This layer involves basic emotions such as anger and love, although it's fundamentally still bereft of abstraction. Notions, whims and desires in their simplest forms reside here, all of them tied to the physical stimuli of layers 1 and 2. Although our mind constructs our sensory world of vision and sound on this level, the meaning of those sensory inputs aren't applied until later levels, specifically levels 4 and 5. Note: this is the domain of neuroscience; the constructs here are correlated with certain, definable areas of the brain, allowing for measurement-based, quantitative data collection. When people claim that autonomy doesn't exist, what their claim really is, is that because layers 4 through 6 are informed by layers 1 through 3, then our 'conscious' mind is simply another mechanism working inside the chosen domain of layers 1 through 3. Therefore, our minds are slaves to layers 1 through 3, and conscious decision making is really unconscious. I agree with some of this, but I reject its frame and conclusion which we will examine below.
Layer 4 is the first layer of abstraction. I will return to this after layers 5 and 6.
Layer 5 is where our higher-order schemata rest. Anytime you utter, read, or think of a word, you are actually taking a physical stimuli from levels 1 through 3 and connecting it to an abstraction. This is both the semantics (meanings) as well as the syntax (pattern-recognition) of language. Your mind constructs these subconsciously, and the connection is so tight that written language leaves the material altogether, rather in perception it becomes the conjured connection itself. For this I cite Piaget. It goes deeper too. When you look at a pencil, you do not see a pencil, you see the schema of what a pencil can do for you as a tool. Here I cite Vervaeake. Note: layer 5 is still a layer of the subconscious, although it is the highest-order subconscious. This is the realm of nonhuman primates and the realm of CBT. When a word is 'on-the-tip-of-your-tongue', there is a malfunction of layer 5. When an idea 'pops into your head' from nowhere, layer 5 collects information from layers 1 through 4, organizes it and analyzes it, and then presents it to layer 6.
What is layer 6? Given the colloqual English definition, layer 6 is you. Layer 6 is the conscious mind. This is where you take schemata and then apply them actively to solve complex problems. Although math concepts are stored and recalled from layer 5, layer 6 is where conscious math is performed. Layer 6 is where you manipulate variables, and when you do math on paper, you're using pen and paper as an extension of both your limited conscious memory and bandwidth. Without paper and written language our capacity to problem solve would be gated by our pitifully small layer 6 memory. Ironically, Socrates, one of the most read philosophers of all time via Plato's writings, lamented the introduction of writing as degenerate. He claimed it allowed laziness into the minds of men. Without writing as a crutch I couldn't articulate these ideas for any of you.
Returning to layer 4, we must examine layer 5. We shall define an 'archetype' as simply a type of schema. We use personalized archetypes all the time. When personified, personal archetypes are stereotypes. As patterns of behavior, they're heuristics. The key point is that archetypes have been made by layer 5 to apply as a universal; of all class X, do, perform, or associate Y (a specific response) irrespective of context.
Layer 4 is where our primitive abstractions lie. Unfortunately, layer 4 cannot be accessed by psychologists as it's too far beneath the conscious mind (and cannot be exactly articulated with standard language), nor can it be accessed through neuroscience (yet) because it's an emergent phenomenon of neurocoordination; it's entirely unknown what areas of the brain are involved with it because like layers 5 and 6, it emerges from a coordination of parts. This coordination is poorly understood. Because of this, Jungian archetypes -- the schemata which live on layer 4 -- are consideded unfalsifiable and therefore unimportant in mainstream science. I will not disagree, they are unfalsifiable, but until neuroscience progresses into the study of emergent behavior via patterns of neurocoordination (which is being worked on, by the way! I cite S. Harris), I posit that Jungian archetypes are indeed relevant because they're the best model we currently have.
Here I will define a Jungian archetype. A Jungian archetype is a universalized universal schema. When a father looks at his newborn child, a father doesn't see the baby. He sees *his* child (layer 5) as well as the amalgam of all children he has ever seen (layer 5 archetype) and the biological, embedded schema of all children humanity and our ancestors has ever seen (how should a father, from an evolutionary standpoint, view his child so as to maximize that child's fitness -- this universalized [across people] universal child [of all children] is a Jungian archetype of the newborn child). It's important here to make a distinction: Jung, a product of his upbringing, considered these archetypes as psuedo-characters. They need not be. Oftentimes, it's the notion of these psuedo-characters that put-off serious intellectuals from his work. But there is an important reason as to why we generally consider Jungian archetypes as psuedo-characters, which I will elaborate upon.
As a budding classicist, part of my work deals with Jungian Archetypes. Examing the ancient myths of the past, when abstracted, it's clear that certain patterns reoccur. This is the case across cultures with no direct communication and therefore -- at best -- only limited copycat storytelling. Where do these patterns come from? I posit from our universalized universal schemata -- from our Jungian Archetypes....
END part 1, I will continue after making coffee.
On layer 2 rests our primitive subconscious. This is where our mechanistic mind interacts on a base-level with neurotransmitters. Citing the work of J. Nestor, this system is intrinsically connected, perhaps as a mediator, between layers 1 and 3. Layer 2 is correlated with physical drug addiction, including forum addiction.
Layer 3 is where our true animal brain rests. This layer involves basic emotions such as anger and love, although it's fundamentally still bereft of abstraction. Notions, whims and desires in their simplest forms reside here, all of them tied to the physical stimuli of layers 1 and 2. Although our mind constructs our sensory world of vision and sound on this level, the meaning of those sensory inputs aren't applied until later levels, specifically levels 4 and 5. Note: this is the domain of neuroscience; the constructs here are correlated with certain, definable areas of the brain, allowing for measurement-based, quantitative data collection. When people claim that autonomy doesn't exist, what their claim really is, is that because layers 4 through 6 are informed by layers 1 through 3, then our 'conscious' mind is simply another mechanism working inside the chosen domain of layers 1 through 3. Therefore, our minds are slaves to layers 1 through 3, and conscious decision making is really unconscious. I agree with some of this, but I reject its frame and conclusion which we will examine below.
Layer 4 is the first layer of abstraction. I will return to this after layers 5 and 6.
Layer 5 is where our higher-order schemata rest. Anytime you utter, read, or think of a word, you are actually taking a physical stimuli from levels 1 through 3 and connecting it to an abstraction. This is both the semantics (meanings) as well as the syntax (pattern-recognition) of language. Your mind constructs these subconsciously, and the connection is so tight that written language leaves the material altogether, rather in perception it becomes the conjured connection itself. For this I cite Piaget. It goes deeper too. When you look at a pencil, you do not see a pencil, you see the schema of what a pencil can do for you as a tool. Here I cite Vervaeake. Note: layer 5 is still a layer of the subconscious, although it is the highest-order subconscious. This is the realm of nonhuman primates and the realm of CBT. When a word is 'on-the-tip-of-your-tongue', there is a malfunction of layer 5. When an idea 'pops into your head' from nowhere, layer 5 collects information from layers 1 through 4, organizes it and analyzes it, and then presents it to layer 6.
What is layer 6? Given the colloqual English definition, layer 6 is you. Layer 6 is the conscious mind. This is where you take schemata and then apply them actively to solve complex problems. Although math concepts are stored and recalled from layer 5, layer 6 is where conscious math is performed. Layer 6 is where you manipulate variables, and when you do math on paper, you're using pen and paper as an extension of both your limited conscious memory and bandwidth. Without paper and written language our capacity to problem solve would be gated by our pitifully small layer 6 memory. Ironically, Socrates, one of the most read philosophers of all time via Plato's writings, lamented the introduction of writing as degenerate. He claimed it allowed laziness into the minds of men. Without writing as a crutch I couldn't articulate these ideas for any of you.
Returning to layer 4, we must examine layer 5. We shall define an 'archetype' as simply a type of schema. We use personalized archetypes all the time. When personified, personal archetypes are stereotypes. As patterns of behavior, they're heuristics. The key point is that archetypes have been made by layer 5 to apply as a universal; of all class X, do, perform, or associate Y (a specific response) irrespective of context.
Layer 4 is where our primitive abstractions lie. Unfortunately, layer 4 cannot be accessed by psychologists as it's too far beneath the conscious mind (and cannot be exactly articulated with standard language), nor can it be accessed through neuroscience (yet) because it's an emergent phenomenon of neurocoordination; it's entirely unknown what areas of the brain are involved with it because like layers 5 and 6, it emerges from a coordination of parts. This coordination is poorly understood. Because of this, Jungian archetypes -- the schemata which live on layer 4 -- are consideded unfalsifiable and therefore unimportant in mainstream science. I will not disagree, they are unfalsifiable, but until neuroscience progresses into the study of emergent behavior via patterns of neurocoordination (which is being worked on, by the way! I cite S. Harris), I posit that Jungian archetypes are indeed relevant because they're the best model we currently have.
Here I will define a Jungian archetype. A Jungian archetype is a universalized universal schema. When a father looks at his newborn child, a father doesn't see the baby. He sees *his* child (layer 5) as well as the amalgam of all children he has ever seen (layer 5 archetype) and the biological, embedded schema of all children humanity and our ancestors has ever seen (how should a father, from an evolutionary standpoint, view his child so as to maximize that child's fitness -- this universalized [across people] universal child [of all children] is a Jungian archetype of the newborn child). It's important here to make a distinction: Jung, a product of his upbringing, considered these archetypes as psuedo-characters. They need not be. Oftentimes, it's the notion of these psuedo-characters that put-off serious intellectuals from his work. But there is an important reason as to why we generally consider Jungian archetypes as psuedo-characters, which I will elaborate upon.
As a budding classicist, part of my work deals with Jungian Archetypes. Examing the ancient myths of the past, when abstracted, it's clear that certain patterns reoccur. This is the case across cultures with no direct communication and therefore -- at best -- only limited copycat storytelling. Where do these patterns come from? I posit from our universalized universal schemata -- from our Jungian Archetypes....
END part 1, I will continue after making coffee.
