PsychSem Analysis and God* use
PSYCHOSEMIOTIC ANALYSIS AND GOD* USE
I.
By "psychosemiotics" is meant, here, the study of the psychology of sign-use*, by which is meant the use of signs to communicate.
This study takes acts of communication between persons as data, the way linguistics and etymology take use of language and words as data, generalizing from these as particular types of tokens to whatever serves the same function as these, namely, transferring a content (meaning, message) from one consciousness to another. Conversation, in a face to face living context, are the paradigm communication situation. Writing, now almost universally injecting alphabetic sound letters, is a substitute for spoken communication, and regarded as individualized through the esoteric "voice" heard in particular styles, such as in Platonic dialogues.
Acts of communication in general involve: the person(s), as active, conscious, self-aware (remembering, observing, intending, interacting) embodied beings; units and complexes of particular sign tokens (S*)
to which the person(s) attend for a short duration, usually occurring in verbal strings, read substitutes; exchanges (or allowing for such) with actual or silently assumed audience-evocateur; process, as in the receptor/reactive nervous system connections between perceptual in-put (hearing what someone is saying) and cognitive output (responding coherently to the understood meaning); and context. With these formal elements: consciousness, S*trings, cross-nose-bridge exchanges, process and context -- rendered constants in talking about (predicating on) sign uses, the entire domain, sector or dimension* of consciousness given to itself under uses of signs, by their meanings, becomes the independent, "philosophical" factor variable in communications, available to analysis through itself or its conditions.
In experience in general, it is objects perceived ('read') as tokens (empirical particulars) of signs, which by definition stand for something other than themselves. This "standing for" is the sign's meaning -- what is not seen or heard in the S* considered as an object in non-semantic relations to other items of experience (color, line, sound, etc.). This meaning can be called the sign's text. The text of a sign is what is given in understanding its meaning, and this is a self-contained unity that can be brought back in different situations by other tokens, these being fungible. In general, tokens may be either inner images, or outer objects, but the text is always "in your head". As the meaning factor amid the other constants it is the continuous, self-contained, wholly presented recurring identity, under its own unique form or matric called here "tokenspace (TknSpc*). As wholly given under a particular occasion of sign-use, text is "non-extended". Measurements of line-distance do not hold between S* as contents of consciousness; it is absurd, a category mistake to say "take half the length of the Pythagorean theorem" (or: "onsider a pair of number 2's") It was this observation that led Descartes to distinguish Mind (or "soul", as the immortal part of the person they are born with) from extended, divisible body, on ultimate, metaphysical grounds as categorically different essences. Thought and extension are irreducible, unavoidable opposites. (Yet both are contents of consciousness under sign-use.) This dualism can never be overthrown or negated. It is a metaphysical given, through communication itself.
Analysis of any instance of sign-use, therefore, can begin with the assumption of some token, S*, in a field of consciousness, communicating some meaning by its text. The text is what S* says; the token is the fact that S* is saying it* (*the message in TknSpc).
As text, analysis of S*trings begins with grammar. Grammar, presupposing a way of pre-sorting tokens into repeatable forms of text, compounds S* in ways that allows truth and falsehood of propositions. This requires a literal declarative intention in the use of sentences: the intention to say something, in the simplest case by attaching a predicate, "blue" to a subject "the sky". S*trings singled out in this manner organized into scientific theory are assumed under the notion of "one universe", the totality of objects and situations as content of consciousness, to belong to a unified field of all true self-consistent propositons as a single system. Grammatical analysis of S*trings consistent with the concept of a unified language of science has been formally pursued to logical syntax, and the theory of axiomatic deductive systems in quantificational logic (including, but not included under, set theory).
The "variables" in the systems of quantificational analysis, as in the context of "the values of the variable 'x' in 'f(x)' are objects to which predicate f applies, are assumed to be replaced in actual use of formal logic by designating expressions: names, or, in syntactical terms, undefined descriptive constants. Grammatical analysis, having originated in subject-predicate sign-use, reconnects to non-formal (in the sense of logical) content of consciousness via names ("udc"'s). One notes that this is almost a reversal of the relation of constants to variable in regard to analysis of sign-use in general, where the variable is the (textual) meaning. In the analysis of that meaning, the variable appears as the letter "x", standing in TknSpc in S*trings of structures connecting names of objects; if truly, then connecting them in ways the objects themselves connect. It is necessary to define this, or assume it is defined, abstractly, in order to apply the rules of deductive inference, which are designed to transfer truth-value from premisses to conclusion with certainty in valid arguments. (This is what is left of Descartes' use of the term, reconstructed. His intuition of a separate and distinct type of knowledge through relations of S* in consciousness, only, was accusrate, but it took the intervening centuries for its rigorous formal elaboration. )
Psychology, including the psychological conditions for conscious discourse, does not occur in the object-language of the empirical sciences (of objects extended in space and time around the percipient body). In fact, reference to psychological entities by name are logical embarassments to the physical sciences. They organize experienced content under theoretical domains by names. This presupposes the experience and its articulation in communication. Within deductive domains, texts cannot deviate from tokens; that is to say, the substitution of tokens with the same meanings in different contexts must be presupposed, which cannot happen if 'subjective expressions' -- "he thought that x was f" -- are mixed with statements of objective fact. The entire realm (dimension, domain) of conscious meanings must be theoreticaly omitted from referential or "extensional" discourse.
However, nothing is more notorious about actual conversational sign-use than its customary non-fact stating intention. In the main, it's motive is to entertain, 'deal with' -- economic exchange; relate to the other person, occasionally swap information. Here the grammar of sentences that permit them to be arranged in regular deductive order is helpful, in information-sharing mode, but gives way as standard form of repetition to gesture templates. These are basically image-forms, or pictures we have of ourselves as actors momentarily on the stage in a give-and-take situation. (cf. the metaphor of "leaving blood on the floor" after a bitter dispute)
Psychosemiotics takes up the analysis of S*trings through non-grammatical relations. Names, rigid designators that serve as values for variables in symbolic logic, are respected, walked around as it were, when objects of scientific study are referred to; but prepositions, verbs, metaphors in tokens convey non-linear, un-quantifiable complexity of content, far exceeding literal true-false textual representation. ("One dream can condense an entire book," Freud said.) These templates of completing gestures in communication -- "hello","goodby", "have a nice day" -- constitute the synthetic apriori Kant's Critique dismissed from pure reason in knowledge. It is the Jungian Unconscious, with Archetypes as logoi in TknSpc; the Transcendental Unity of Apperception brought into sign-use in general as "mine" -- that is to say, in relation to the individual consciousness for which/whom all content is a unity. These portals are what actual name and gesture use open, when brought back by analysis. From this standpoint, outside textusal consciousness, but including it, meaning is life (oxygen in the blood of communication). That is one of the teachings arrived at in psychosemiotics.
II.
GOD* USE
Maybe in saying "God" no one is doing exactly what they think -- whatever that is, as part of the context of sign-use. Referring to "a higher being?
Philosophers in general, starting from the human standpoint in regard to knowledge, have repeatedly taken users of "God" to task for not knowing what they were talking about, tacitly re-assigning reality-pretentions to sign-use in relation to consciousness. Thus, Descartes, again, was the first to explicitly demote what the medievalists (mostly Christian, but also Muhammedan and Jew) had called "God" (Adonai* Zeus* Elohim/Yhwh* Allah*) to an "idea". He could be sure (if not certain) by 1600 that someone wasn't going to appear to repute him in person in the name of some actual God-entity because from what was becoming known and gradually understood about the world at that point, these then-ancient deities had been replaced by scientific explanations of change through causes, leaving only the S*trings of their stories as "real" beings, as in the incarnation to project in TokrnSpace. Descartes' metaphysical dualism assigns use of "God", to stand for an "idea", to the category of thinking/non-extended substance, related to the world of physical objects as the self-subject unity of consciousness is in each perception and sign-use. Thus philosophers, along with strands of others, such as hermeticists and alchemists who retained and accumulated knowledge of actual causes, even if disguized in fantasy, are owed a great intellectual debt in ridding learned discourse of superstitution, pretentiousness, pedantry, if not symbolic pedophilia in calling the hand of God -Users possessed by who knows what. The Cartesian co-ordinate system, onto which trajectories of projectile motion can be analyzed as sequences of point-sets, generating geometrical shapes by lines drawn through continues magnitudes, is still in use in mapping motion in three-dimensional outer space onto the two-dimensional plane of a sheet of graph paper. The sheer power of this brilliant psychosemiotic scheme, based on mapping the constructs in TokenSpace, laid out with the rightly ordered tokens (number-sequences from 0 - / + in intersecting horizontal/vertical lines) onto space in general, as surrounding the body and filling the cosmos. It was not so long ago that learned people could be genuinely wondering what this all-suffusing "simultaneously given" (Kant) thing called "space" IS -- as if the relatedness filled with light, cosmic particles, and gravity, were something real to be predicated on, itself: Space. According to early modern cosmology, "aether" filled it, and "rays" swept around the whirling sun to keep planets in orbit (Kepler). The Cartesian co-ordinate system with its tokens of textual description and rules of use (map codes), provides intellectual mastery over that Space as pure extension, while leaving consciousness, God* and self intact, as a unity for each other, "on the token side". On the token side of sign-use, when the sign used is "God", the "idea" of totality of the extended, external world is brought to unity for consciousness under formal, "clear and distinct" truth, including mathematics. This is why God* can be regarded as the Father (extra-spatial, non-terrestial) progenitor of the "son", as "logos" incarnated through the speech of the Man of Light, reproduced in modes of self-and-other relationship by The Spirit. Thus the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Gost is a symbolic dispacement of the three-stage hierarch of sign-use tokens of the upper triad (whose contents are wholly contained as simple units of meaning in the individual conscious moment). On this view "God the Father" would be the token of totality incarnating in the logos of the son's obedience, re-incarnating in the consciousness looped into that story by the Spirit in the Inner Church throughout history to now, if it undergoes re-birth.
God*, as grammatical variant of "the Christian Trinity", as some speak, is distributed through the three "centers" or "brains" of organized content, as their highest, in the sense of ideal completing function: of intellect, the logic (reason); of inter-relatedness, the love; of egoic being, the nutriants for inner growth. That is why it cannot be significally asked "Does God exist" when "God" is used for the Christian Trinity. To raise this question after 0 AD is to tacitly re-instate the Old Testament ELOHIM/YHWH token, where to be sure it strictly applies, and begs rigorous answer. (Probably composites, back to MARDUK). This replacement is displacement of history into Now.
But that is what unrestricted God* use leads to. By-passing the incarnation as a secondary theological construct off the parent psychosemiotic tree, the Spirit is left ungrounded in the metaphysical triad. Oh, it's around. Churches capture it some. Preachers ooze unction when you raise the subject. But it has been grounded for incarnation in the mainstream media as "Judeo-Christian tradition", and attached to the war in Iraq for Israel. That is why it is of utmost importance today to categorically disconnect the notion of "God the Father", in Christian terms, from "God the Father" in any other (broader, more generic) terms. Jesus did not call the Semitic deity "Father" (argued elsewhere).
"God", as the single word-sign for the totality of totalities, comprises under its use a nested hierarchy of metaphors. Father Son and Holy Ghost are the unity of the upper triad of consciousness, distinct, but not separated from the content supplied by the lower triad. These are: the neurophysiological (cellular level), phenomenal (ur-conscious sense-datum level), and organic/orgasmic (imbodied level). Sexual ejaculation with the pleasure acme as mapped by Wilhelm Reich's arousal/tension//release/relaxation schema is the "God" of the lower triad, to which the phenomenal and neuro-psychological levels submit in function. It is the energy that reproduces the species. Each of these three levels of conscious content is co-ordinate with spatial 'tentacles', intra-anatomically organized extended matter: chemical, in cells; electro-cortical, in the brain; libidinal in the body* (*incl. fantasy embodiment). These coordinate levels of anatomical function deposit rings, as it were, around the omni-present "ground zero" of conscious awareness, which are reconstructed by critique of token-types in regard to content. They are, again, the base-neuron arousal, phenomenal/aesthetic consciousness, and libidinal awareness.
The "Fourth" of each triad, where they overlap, as in the Masonic symbol and Israeli flag drawings in TknSpc, is the Moral dimension: where the upper triad and the lower combine, under will, to act. If the upper triad is assigned to super-ego functions, and the lower to id-functions, the Moral realm mediating between the "God"'s of both is the realm of the Ego: situated as a conscious unity, at level 5 (first level of the upper triad), acting on, and through the body (level 4) through the energy of the spirit (level 3/ sublimated to 6).
So from below, the nested hierarchy of metaphors is: birth (breaking through the neurophysiological embyo to fetal life to the "external world", by wining Cosmic battle against the Placenta); spiritual re-birth, through re-union with the split-off, nurturant Placental container; maturation, mating and reproduction of kind -- as the functions of God* to organiz species activity.
From above, the upper triad hierarchy descends from God* as token of the completing totality (of totalities); to Sign-use for all sign-uses; to Sign-uses by "I" for myself as conscious being. (7,6,5: theological, philosophical, existential levels of content under sign-use)
The work of sublimation is begun with re-birth, to transform object cathexis of a portion of libido to objects that complete the upper triad. It is that which can sail on the seas of time through space.
I.
By "psychosemiotics" is meant, here, the study of the psychology of sign-use*, by which is meant the use of signs to communicate.
This study takes acts of communication between persons as data, the way linguistics and etymology take use of language and words as data, generalizing from these as particular types of tokens to whatever serves the same function as these, namely, transferring a content (meaning, message) from one consciousness to another. Conversation, in a face to face living context, are the paradigm communication situation. Writing, now almost universally injecting alphabetic sound letters, is a substitute for spoken communication, and regarded as individualized through the esoteric "voice" heard in particular styles, such as in Platonic dialogues.
Acts of communication in general involve: the person(s), as active, conscious, self-aware (remembering, observing, intending, interacting) embodied beings; units and complexes of particular sign tokens (S*)
to which the person(s) attend for a short duration, usually occurring in verbal strings, read substitutes; exchanges (or allowing for such) with actual or silently assumed audience-evocateur; process, as in the receptor/reactive nervous system connections between perceptual in-put (hearing what someone is saying) and cognitive output (responding coherently to the understood meaning); and context. With these formal elements: consciousness, S*trings, cross-nose-bridge exchanges, process and context -- rendered constants in talking about (predicating on) sign uses, the entire domain, sector or dimension* of consciousness given to itself under uses of signs, by their meanings, becomes the independent, "philosophical" factor variable in communications, available to analysis through itself or its conditions.
In experience in general, it is objects perceived ('read') as tokens (empirical particulars) of signs, which by definition stand for something other than themselves. This "standing for" is the sign's meaning -- what is not seen or heard in the S* considered as an object in non-semantic relations to other items of experience (color, line, sound, etc.). This meaning can be called the sign's text. The text of a sign is what is given in understanding its meaning, and this is a self-contained unity that can be brought back in different situations by other tokens, these being fungible. In general, tokens may be either inner images, or outer objects, but the text is always "in your head". As the meaning factor amid the other constants it is the continuous, self-contained, wholly presented recurring identity, under its own unique form or matric called here "tokenspace (TknSpc*). As wholly given under a particular occasion of sign-use, text is "non-extended". Measurements of line-distance do not hold between S* as contents of consciousness; it is absurd, a category mistake to say "take half the length of the Pythagorean theorem" (or: "onsider a pair of number 2's") It was this observation that led Descartes to distinguish Mind (or "soul", as the immortal part of the person they are born with) from extended, divisible body, on ultimate, metaphysical grounds as categorically different essences. Thought and extension are irreducible, unavoidable opposites. (Yet both are contents of consciousness under sign-use.) This dualism can never be overthrown or negated. It is a metaphysical given, through communication itself.
Analysis of any instance of sign-use, therefore, can begin with the assumption of some token, S*, in a field of consciousness, communicating some meaning by its text. The text is what S* says; the token is the fact that S* is saying it* (*the message in TknSpc).
As text, analysis of S*trings begins with grammar. Grammar, presupposing a way of pre-sorting tokens into repeatable forms of text, compounds S* in ways that allows truth and falsehood of propositions. This requires a literal declarative intention in the use of sentences: the intention to say something, in the simplest case by attaching a predicate, "blue" to a subject "the sky". S*trings singled out in this manner organized into scientific theory are assumed under the notion of "one universe", the totality of objects and situations as content of consciousness, to belong to a unified field of all true self-consistent propositons as a single system. Grammatical analysis of S*trings consistent with the concept of a unified language of science has been formally pursued to logical syntax, and the theory of axiomatic deductive systems in quantificational logic (including, but not included under, set theory).
The "variables" in the systems of quantificational analysis, as in the context of "the values of the variable 'x' in 'f(x)' are objects to which predicate f applies, are assumed to be replaced in actual use of formal logic by designating expressions: names, or, in syntactical terms, undefined descriptive constants. Grammatical analysis, having originated in subject-predicate sign-use, reconnects to non-formal (in the sense of logical) content of consciousness via names ("udc"'s). One notes that this is almost a reversal of the relation of constants to variable in regard to analysis of sign-use in general, where the variable is the (textual) meaning. In the analysis of that meaning, the variable appears as the letter "x", standing in TknSpc in S*trings of structures connecting names of objects; if truly, then connecting them in ways the objects themselves connect. It is necessary to define this, or assume it is defined, abstractly, in order to apply the rules of deductive inference, which are designed to transfer truth-value from premisses to conclusion with certainty in valid arguments. (This is what is left of Descartes' use of the term, reconstructed. His intuition of a separate and distinct type of knowledge through relations of S* in consciousness, only, was accusrate, but it took the intervening centuries for its rigorous formal elaboration. )
Psychology, including the psychological conditions for conscious discourse, does not occur in the object-language of the empirical sciences (of objects extended in space and time around the percipient body). In fact, reference to psychological entities by name are logical embarassments to the physical sciences. They organize experienced content under theoretical domains by names. This presupposes the experience and its articulation in communication. Within deductive domains, texts cannot deviate from tokens; that is to say, the substitution of tokens with the same meanings in different contexts must be presupposed, which cannot happen if 'subjective expressions' -- "he thought that x was f" -- are mixed with statements of objective fact. The entire realm (dimension, domain) of conscious meanings must be theoreticaly omitted from referential or "extensional" discourse.
However, nothing is more notorious about actual conversational sign-use than its customary non-fact stating intention. In the main, it's motive is to entertain, 'deal with' -- economic exchange; relate to the other person, occasionally swap information. Here the grammar of sentences that permit them to be arranged in regular deductive order is helpful, in information-sharing mode, but gives way as standard form of repetition to gesture templates. These are basically image-forms, or pictures we have of ourselves as actors momentarily on the stage in a give-and-take situation. (cf. the metaphor of "leaving blood on the floor" after a bitter dispute)
Psychosemiotics takes up the analysis of S*trings through non-grammatical relations. Names, rigid designators that serve as values for variables in symbolic logic, are respected, walked around as it were, when objects of scientific study are referred to; but prepositions, verbs, metaphors in tokens convey non-linear, un-quantifiable complexity of content, far exceeding literal true-false textual representation. ("One dream can condense an entire book," Freud said.) These templates of completing gestures in communication -- "hello","goodby", "have a nice day" -- constitute the synthetic apriori Kant's Critique dismissed from pure reason in knowledge. It is the Jungian Unconscious, with Archetypes as logoi in TknSpc; the Transcendental Unity of Apperception brought into sign-use in general as "mine" -- that is to say, in relation to the individual consciousness for which/whom all content is a unity. These portals are what actual name and gesture use open, when brought back by analysis. From this standpoint, outside textusal consciousness, but including it, meaning is life (oxygen in the blood of communication). That is one of the teachings arrived at in psychosemiotics.
II.
GOD* USE
Maybe in saying "God" no one is doing exactly what they think -- whatever that is, as part of the context of sign-use. Referring to "a higher being?
Philosophers in general, starting from the human standpoint in regard to knowledge, have repeatedly taken users of "God" to task for not knowing what they were talking about, tacitly re-assigning reality-pretentions to sign-use in relation to consciousness. Thus, Descartes, again, was the first to explicitly demote what the medievalists (mostly Christian, but also Muhammedan and Jew) had called "God" (Adonai* Zeus* Elohim/Yhwh* Allah*) to an "idea". He could be sure (if not certain) by 1600 that someone wasn't going to appear to repute him in person in the name of some actual God-entity because from what was becoming known and gradually understood about the world at that point, these then-ancient deities had been replaced by scientific explanations of change through causes, leaving only the S*trings of their stories as "real" beings, as in the incarnation to project in TokrnSpace. Descartes' metaphysical dualism assigns use of "God", to stand for an "idea", to the category of thinking/non-extended substance, related to the world of physical objects as the self-subject unity of consciousness is in each perception and sign-use. Thus philosophers, along with strands of others, such as hermeticists and alchemists who retained and accumulated knowledge of actual causes, even if disguized in fantasy, are owed a great intellectual debt in ridding learned discourse of superstitution, pretentiousness, pedantry, if not symbolic pedophilia in calling the hand of God -Users possessed by who knows what. The Cartesian co-ordinate system, onto which trajectories of projectile motion can be analyzed as sequences of point-sets, generating geometrical shapes by lines drawn through continues magnitudes, is still in use in mapping motion in three-dimensional outer space onto the two-dimensional plane of a sheet of graph paper. The sheer power of this brilliant psychosemiotic scheme, based on mapping the constructs in TokenSpace, laid out with the rightly ordered tokens (number-sequences from 0 - / + in intersecting horizontal/vertical lines) onto space in general, as surrounding the body and filling the cosmos. It was not so long ago that learned people could be genuinely wondering what this all-suffusing "simultaneously given" (Kant) thing called "space" IS -- as if the relatedness filled with light, cosmic particles, and gravity, were something real to be predicated on, itself: Space. According to early modern cosmology, "aether" filled it, and "rays" swept around the whirling sun to keep planets in orbit (Kepler). The Cartesian co-ordinate system with its tokens of textual description and rules of use (map codes), provides intellectual mastery over that Space as pure extension, while leaving consciousness, God* and self intact, as a unity for each other, "on the token side". On the token side of sign-use, when the sign used is "God", the "idea" of totality of the extended, external world is brought to unity for consciousness under formal, "clear and distinct" truth, including mathematics. This is why God* can be regarded as the Father (extra-spatial, non-terrestial) progenitor of the "son", as "logos" incarnated through the speech of the Man of Light, reproduced in modes of self-and-other relationship by The Spirit. Thus the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Gost is a symbolic dispacement of the three-stage hierarch of sign-use tokens of the upper triad (whose contents are wholly contained as simple units of meaning in the individual conscious moment). On this view "God the Father" would be the token of totality incarnating in the logos of the son's obedience, re-incarnating in the consciousness looped into that story by the Spirit in the Inner Church throughout history to now, if it undergoes re-birth.
God*, as grammatical variant of "the Christian Trinity", as some speak, is distributed through the three "centers" or "brains" of organized content, as their highest, in the sense of ideal completing function: of intellect, the logic (reason); of inter-relatedness, the love; of egoic being, the nutriants for inner growth. That is why it cannot be significally asked "Does God exist" when "God" is used for the Christian Trinity. To raise this question after 0 AD is to tacitly re-instate the Old Testament ELOHIM/YHWH token, where to be sure it strictly applies, and begs rigorous answer. (Probably composites, back to MARDUK). This replacement is displacement of history into Now.
But that is what unrestricted God* use leads to. By-passing the incarnation as a secondary theological construct off the parent psychosemiotic tree, the Spirit is left ungrounded in the metaphysical triad. Oh, it's around. Churches capture it some. Preachers ooze unction when you raise the subject. But it has been grounded for incarnation in the mainstream media as "Judeo-Christian tradition", and attached to the war in Iraq for Israel. That is why it is of utmost importance today to categorically disconnect the notion of "God the Father", in Christian terms, from "God the Father" in any other (broader, more generic) terms. Jesus did not call the Semitic deity "Father" (argued elsewhere).
"God", as the single word-sign for the totality of totalities, comprises under its use a nested hierarchy of metaphors. Father Son and Holy Ghost are the unity of the upper triad of consciousness, distinct, but not separated from the content supplied by the lower triad. These are: the neurophysiological (cellular level), phenomenal (ur-conscious sense-datum level), and organic/orgasmic (imbodied level). Sexual ejaculation with the pleasure acme as mapped by Wilhelm Reich's arousal/tension//release/relaxation schema is the "God" of the lower triad, to which the phenomenal and neuro-psychological levels submit in function. It is the energy that reproduces the species. Each of these three levels of conscious content is co-ordinate with spatial 'tentacles', intra-anatomically organized extended matter: chemical, in cells; electro-cortical, in the brain; libidinal in the body* (*incl. fantasy embodiment). These coordinate levels of anatomical function deposit rings, as it were, around the omni-present "ground zero" of conscious awareness, which are reconstructed by critique of token-types in regard to content. They are, again, the base-neuron arousal, phenomenal/aesthetic consciousness, and libidinal awareness.
The "Fourth" of each triad, where they overlap, as in the Masonic symbol and Israeli flag drawings in TknSpc, is the Moral dimension: where the upper triad and the lower combine, under will, to act. If the upper triad is assigned to super-ego functions, and the lower to id-functions, the Moral realm mediating between the "God"'s of both is the realm of the Ego: situated as a conscious unity, at level 5 (first level of the upper triad), acting on, and through the body (level 4) through the energy of the spirit (level 3/ sublimated to 6).
So from below, the nested hierarchy of metaphors is: birth (breaking through the neurophysiological embyo to fetal life to the "external world", by wining Cosmic battle against the Placenta); spiritual re-birth, through re-union with the split-off, nurturant Placental container; maturation, mating and reproduction of kind -- as the functions of God* to organiz species activity.
From above, the upper triad hierarchy descends from God* as token of the completing totality (of totalities); to Sign-use for all sign-uses; to Sign-uses by "I" for myself as conscious being. (7,6,5: theological, philosophical, existential levels of content under sign-use)
The work of sublimation is begun with re-birth, to transform object cathexis of a portion of libido to objects that complete the upper triad. It is that which can sail on the seas of time through space.
posted by Sid Thomas | 10:06 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home