HOW WE EXPERIENCE OURSELVES — revisited

¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0 This is a convoluted story. The process of your accurately comprehending this hypothesis will dynamically interact with the topic, itself – your experiencing your experiencing. Also, comprehending need not imply believing or accepting; yet it is “in our nature” to often confound them.

¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 Here I am APPLYING a hypotheses, arrived at from the study of specific phenomena, to different categories of phenomena. If this new application “works”, it will strengthen the hypothesis.

¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 0 The phenomenon to which the new hypothesis is being applied is sexual abuse and its apparent cover-up by all players, from the victims-and-their-supporters, to the “abusers”, and the institutional and societal cover ups. The specific case being many young girls abused by their renowned and respected, gymnastic doctor.

¶ 4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 0 The phenomenon within which this hypothesis emerged is the FAKE NEWS claims in relation to the Trump Phenomenon, in the USA and globally (the new rise of “authoritarianism”).

¶ 5 Leave a comment on paragraph 5 0 I have yet to give this new hypothesis a name/label. To “name” a concept, insight, idea, or conceptual scheme is to encase it in a straitjacket; yet symbolic labels are necessary for working with them in languaging. I shall now name this hypothesis the Personal Wrld Hypothesis: PWH.

¶ 6 Leave a comment on paragraph 6 0 I further speculate that PWH may be the key catalyst for a necessary, radical epistemic shift, for the whole of humankind; to resolve our accelerating Crisis-of-Crises, that threatens our very survival/thrival.

Back to the application: According to PWH, every sexual abuser lives in a wrld, of their unconscious creation, where their behavior is justified. These personal wrlds of sexual abusers will be quite different. Even in those wrlds where the person conceptually knows their behavior is “wrong”, there are “reasons why”.

¶ 8 Leave a comment on paragraph 8 0 We are all “pathological individualists”.

———— PWH Foundations

¶ 9 Leave a comment on paragraph 9 0 The scientific foundation for PWH as been an “established conclusion of neuroscience” for decades and a “philosophical option” for probably centuries. But, typical to the slow movement of scientific “facts” into the “social/societal practices of human systems”, this foundation discovery is yet ignored (and difficult to “psychologically believe”, even by those who conceptually accept its “truth”).

¶ 10 Leave a comment on paragraph 10 0 The “fact” behind PWH: Personal, “conscious” experientials are “hallucinations” created by our personal brains/bodies. Our “conscious experientials” are a consequence of patterns of neural-molecular activity in the physiological systems of our brains. I use the term “wrld” to label the “holistic, systemic, emergent pattern” of this neural-molecular activity within each human person, from conception to death.

¶ 11 Leave a comment on paragraph 11 0 Humans don’t “directly access/experience” an objective/external “world”.

¶ 12 Leave a comment on paragraph 12 0 That objective/external worlds “exist” is evident in the information patterns we do experience. PWH is not a claim for pure solipsism . We create scientific “conceptual models of objective reality” from our “recorded/shared writings” about our hallucinatory experientials. We automatically & unconsciously select, warp, and invent details, “from our senses” to “project hallucinatory experientials on our screen of consciousness”. These hallucinations are “real” and can have “meaning”.

¶ 13 Leave a comment on paragraph 13 0 WRLDS are “universe shattering innovations”, recently “emergent in COSMOS”, for which we human can be “proud”, being “vehicles” in this “uplifting of reality”. It is our confusing wrlds with worlds, that is temporarily causing  difficulty.

————- CONDITIONAL / HYPOTHETICAL

¶ 14 Leave a comment on paragraph 14 0 All of the ideas in PWH are “hypothetical”. It emerges from the hallucinations of Larry/nuet. All terms in “parentheses” require special definition. The “logic is circular”. There are “alternative models” (although lacking inter subjectively confirmed evidence) such as “telepathic mind-mind resonance” and “GODS”.

¶ 15 Leave a comment on paragraph 15 0 Larry/nuet’s hallucinatory take: humans are yet embryonic emergents within “COSMOS”, and lack the “cognitive tools” for “comprehending ultimate reality”. We “humans can do” only what we are “equipped to do”. Humans are not the “finished product” of evolution.

————– 2018 Consequences of PWH.

¶ 16 Leave a comment on paragraph 16 0 EVERY HUMAN PERSON,
EVER,
LIVED & ACTED
IN CONTEXT WITH
THEIR PERSONAL WRLDS.

¶ 17 Leave a comment on paragraph 17 0 MYSELF (Larry/nuet), YOU (readers), EVERYONE (Trump, Sanders, Putin, Newton, Soros, Bannon, Clinton, Einstein, Hildegard von Bingen, Copernicus, Mao, Feynman, Dahlmer, Jesus, Plato, Maddow, etc.) are WRLDS, not just persons or selves.

¶ 18 Leave a comment on paragraph 18 0 EXERCISE: Attend carefully to the speech of anyone. Observe how they claim knowledge of an objective reality/world. What do they really know, from their personal observations? EVERYTHING THEY SAY (except for detailed descriptions of their immediate conscious experiences) is THEIR ANALYSIS of REPORTS THEY PERCEIVED.

¶ 19 Leave a comment on paragraph 19 0 The Relevant Wrld of most human persons is not what they perceive, but what they imagine/speculate/believe is a “reality behind” their perceptual experiences. Humans continually CREATE the reality context for their moment-by-moment perceptions. This “creation” is neither conscious nor intentional; it is a “natural process” that evolved/emerged for humans. Our wrlds “Creatively Emerge”, they are not “Consciously Created”.

¶ 20 Leave a comment on paragraph 20 0 We EACH AGREE with those reports which “support” our wrlds, and “object” to those which don’t.

¶ 21 Leave a comment on paragraph 21 0 BOOK vs PhD CURRICULA for NUET

What is the “nature/extent of the system” required to “do the job”?
Many have recommended that I write/publish a book.
What is needed is a high quality “Educational System”, well beyond passive responses to the reading of a published book.

¶ 23 Leave a comment on paragraph 23 0 HORIZONTAL CHATTER – JABBER, JABBER, JABBER

99% of what I observe/read is HORIZONTAL CHATTER. An exchange of information limited to an unconsciously accepted episteme. These exchanges range from fake, trivial, informative, to profound. This episteme has been very successful and is very resistant being replaced.

This is the dominant episteme of the USA and the Global Capitalist Regime. There are numerous other epistemes in play, from those of small indigenous tribes to large populations beyond “The West”. There may be remnants of most historical epistemes in small populations, today. Films are periodically made to shock us to recognize the vast diversity of human cultures and behaviors.

Curation is an accelerator of this exchange. Participants are eager to share their most recent discoveries (articles/reports). There is a slow increase in accepted knowledge, within the populations participating. This is greatly facilitated by new varieties of cyberspace access to these docs.

Participants and recipients, in this exchange, are unaware that they are “being indoctrinated into the ideology” of this episteme. Dialog and discourse challenging this episteme is not only absent, but the category non-existent. This absence of alternatives, is not recognized.

Those persons whose episteme are different, discover the impossibility of communicating across epistemes. How to confront this is our primary challenge.

One of my rare adventures into “poetry” as medium, I composed JABBER, JABBER, JABBER  to express my “discomfort”.