Mind-Maps (I)

I created the following Mind-Maps to illustrate more of my thinking style in terms of condensing as well as synthesising my chain of reasoning for the concepts I either create or the existing ones I contemplate upon (& play around with)->

I. The Map for Survival

The key is to achieve homeostatic psychosomaticism- i.e., the stability between the body and the brain, and the important tool here is the power of the mind to manipulate the game of survival. If you can convince your mind that you have the power to make it out alive- you’ve won.

[Thoughts I had in the ICU bed- constructing the model for durability induced by survival instincts as the tiles on the roof kept transposing via the (magical, astonishing &.. an aporia) state of delirium. The model seemed to have worked, helped me meditate for the first time in a very long time. Near-death experiences are truly transforming- not endorsing that this model would work for everyone of course- but it seemed to have worked for me- and made me realise that it’s truly the mind that possesses all the power in a sentient- and that perhaps the mind has always been the biggest gem of all times- hence, making the manipulation of mind the biggest virtue & weapon in the history of mankind]

II. Deconstructing Philosophy

Philosophy is not a ‘way of life’- that’s perhaps the biggest myth of all.. it’s the way of rationally contemplating about the very essence of contemplation itself, along-with the inquiry into existence, reality and what possibly lies beyond i.e., the abstraction of the universe.

[Philosophy can roughly be divided into a) Axiology i.e., the scrutiny of value in theology, b) Epistemology i.e., the investigation of the essence of knowledge and, c) Metaphysics i.e., inquiry into abstraction of the universe, existence (ontology), etc.]

III. On the Phenomenology of Perception

It is the imaginative capacity of our perceptual consciousness which constructs the subjective sense of external environment perceived.

[Imagination (within the Imaginative Capacity of Perceptual/Visual Consciousness) renders (or puts together) the ‘images’ of our immediate external environment perceived. Hence, the (Real*/Actual) physical/material reality is imperceptible to the perception of a subjective sentient. What we experience, is merely a subjective constructed sense of reality. One could hence argue that our perceptual & imaginative capacities is what accounts for the ‘qualia’— “the hard problem of consciousness” (Chalmers). Philosophically illustrating—the triad between (i.e., theories or perception) Husserl-Sarte-Ponty is the key to understanding this chain of reasoning i.e., Husserlian theory of perception leading to or adopted later by Sartre & Ponty via phenomenological speculative introspection. One could also interpret this via the lens of Embodied Cognition (Varela) i.e., Neurophenemenological scrutiny of the mind-body problem (Descartes)—> Body ~ Mind (~ = influence). Broadly speaking, the ‘constructed sense of reality via perceptual consciousness’ is what contemporary thinkers would define as the ‘dream-like sense of reality’ (Joscha Bach) or as a ‘continuous hallucination/s that mark the subjective sense of reality’ (Anil Seth). Therefore, to loosely conclude, we construct our sense of reality via our imaginative capacities via perception (within consciousness)] —— [Some reflective add on(s) after a twitter dialogue– A) Perceptual Consciousness here would come off as a term under the umbrella of access consciousness (i.e., the functions that can be associated with consciousness)— the very use however would elucidate more about the essence of phenomenal consciousness. B) The key term use of perceptual consciousness * i.e., a mechanism for deciphering the enigma of the hard problem via a theory of perception with this argument in generation. C) Access & Phenomenal Consciousness are Ned Block’s terminologies that has been used within this argument– the term merely is broadly aided or ‘does justice to’—via the in-depth investigation of the perceptual (access) consciousness. Deciphering access consciousness—> Apprehension of the phenomenal consciousness. D) There’s a presumption assumed here that the material/physical reality a) exists and, b) is inaccessible—the ‘proof’ however I suppose would be illuminated via studies/experiments conducted to elaborate more the basal essence of neural interactions & the different brain-states. (I will continue to develop this of course, for now this is all I choose to share here)]

IV. The Construct of Intelligence

Intelligence is an autonomous subject’s capacity to comprehend or synthesise knowledge alongside the capacity for abstraction and furthermore to possess the ability to create unique models.

[Thoughts derived from another twitter dialogue about the C3 model for Intelligence– Intelligence is/comprises of C3- i.e., a somewhat top-down reduction of the complexity which is intelligence. I wouldn’t reduce it even* more than c3. An agent is intelligent by the virtue of being able to create models within its given environment however, the models created require a certain level of comprehensive and connectivistic capacities. I think resolution & causal reconstruction definitely plays a huge role in effectuating the C3 capacities (within one’s intellect) because it puts forth the ingredients upon through which the model is brought into existence… It would be the components/constituents. Like each component is independent however, all the components are required for the agent to be intelligent. Because an agent could have creative capacity only but that would be a waste if it’s not able to grasp the model’s meaning or level of abstraction]

V. The Triad of Psychoanalysis

I would divide Psychoanalysis or let’s say interchangeably also broadly the Psychoanalytical movement into roughly three subsets i.e., as Empirical psychoanalysis, Collective Psychoanalysis & Semantic Psychoanalysis.

[ (A) Empirical Psychoanalysis has its basis in the sciences of brain and body i.e., a biological basis that Freud heavily relied on to carefully construct the genesis of the psychoanalytic movement in 1896. (B) Collective Psychoanalysis has a psychical basis i.e., broadly a metaphysical, anthropological and psychological basis- what I think Jung introduced and conceptualised shortly after the Freudian genesis- specifically with his coinage of the term ‘Collective Unconscious’. (C) Semantic Psychoanalysis has its basis in the inquiry into the use of language or communication- Lacan’s famous quote about the unconscious being structured as a language would do justice to the basis stated here ]