Meditatively inspired theories:
1) Brain as a projection surface for the organs of the body.
2) Hyperdimensionality of the functionality of life.
3) Role of the human being in the Earth biotope hypersystem.
4) Relationship between dream, fantasy, will and reality.
Meditation-Ethics-Science: The term-combining should point to a connection between self-reflection (meditation) and the consideration
of both the emotional level (ethics) and its impact on the intellectual level (science). Under the influence of meditation,
science should not be seen as something different from ethics, which requires a humane control from the outside. Instead, it acquires
the property of merging with ethical principles. All three terms are to be seen in analogy to the terms "body, soul and spirit":
"meditation" stands for mental and physical form, "ethics" for the laws of feeling, "science" for the laws of thinking. deutsche Version
Consideration of the phenomenology of thinking, feeling and acting
The question here is how much radicalism can be tolerated in a questioning of experienced reality. Ultimately, all physical perceptions must be transmitted as electrical
impulses via nerve tracts. Then there are synaptic clefts, which also have to be overcome, chemically. At the body level, therefore, there are only complex patterns of chemical and
electrical oscillations. The oscillation pattern is therefore actually the true reality. Biopsychosocially, an experienced reality is constructed from this. This observation alone,
even if limited, results in completely different requirements for certain questions such as the following. The "problem" is that the biopsychosocially constructed reality has an important
function for the process of individual life and cannot simply be negated or discarded. But the knowledge of these limitations makes completely different theoretical considerations possible,
which also allow for a larger framework.
Thus, there is no reason for qualitatively different localities in the brain in relation to different organs of the body, nor is there a reason for arbitrary separations of
physical and mental functions. But there are arguments in favor of holistic uniformity.
What speaks against the hyperdimensionality of life, from the organization of single-celled organisms to the organization of species to larger units such as biotopes like that of
the earth to even larger units in the universe? At least the human imagination.
The human being is not aware of his role in the overarching system of the earth's biotope and underestimates the function of cooperation and culture.
Even if it is speculative - there should be a connection between dream and reality, fantasy and reality, desire and structure, thought and gestalt, being and form.
Using the example of the (human) brain and its embedding in larger contexts, theses are to be drawn up based on a certain working hypothesis in the approach to consideration: that things
which look complicated from the human perspective could be simple, coherent, logical from a meta-perspective of nature as a whole. The problem here is more the subjective perception of
the viewer, the phenomenological and anthropocentric influences she underlies, than the thing that is being analyzed.
The concepts of "autopoiesis" and of "radical enactivism" act here in this paper as a central theoretical basis. The aim is to try to avoid phenomenal influences on the part of the
viewer and to take a neutral position outside of the processes described.
"Autopoiesis" was first described by VARELA, MATURANA & URIBE(1) and describes the self-organization of a cell or several cells. In particular, the principle of organization and the natural
limits of a cell come into consideration here.
The concept of "radical enactivism" originally comes from HUTTO & MYIN (2) and describes the structure of cognitive processes through actions and actioning in the environment itself,
without having to resort to representational explanations. The search for a "basic basis" of what is to be explained is of particular interest here. However, I miss in the concept of
enactivism the role of the inner organs; for me, digestion is an active, also cognitive process of an individual to interact with the environment. Here I see no qualitative difference
to other organismic activities - on a neurological level, it shouldn't matter whether the organism moves within the environment or the environment moves within the organism, so to speak.
I therefore also suspect a similar projection of all the organs of the body within the cortex. For example, if there are localities of the visual system, there should also be corresponding
localities of the digestive system. It is possible that the correlative relationship between psychological variables such as decision-making and localities of the cortex may be based
on a causal relationship with organs involved in food processing (stomach, liver, kidneys, etc.).
The question also arises here whether the concept of "representation" can be dispensed entirely in that it is viewed as a self-increasing, subjective explanatory construct.
I think a middle ground between the traditional neuroscientific understanding and the concept of embodiment is best here, where both a physical locality and an embodied experience are assumed.
However, the question is what is represented when all external information is ultimately passed on via synaptic clefts and nerve pathways as an oscillation pattern.
There are no limits to the complexity here, the amount of information that the organism can receive is almost unlimited and exceeds the imagination of what was originally
understood by "representation". Moreover, in a holistic nested system of microcosm and macrocosm, there is no reason why a species sees a "world" as it is and whether it perceives
itself in one at all. "Above and below" in a biopsychosocial system of perception and reference could just as well have a dream-like origins in an evolutionary environment.
After all, every species always remains a part embedded in a larger whole, both physically and psychologically. Every cognition moves within this relationship and cannot
be viewed in isolation from it. Each species not only lives in its "own bubble", but is also part of a larger part of a larger "bubble".
Every single-celled organism, e.g. the species "human" - whether inside or outside the actual organism - has its own interests (in the sense of autopoiesis),
also participates in the interests of the larger "human" unit. Even if an individual organism possibly perceives almost exclusively its immediate "bubble", in an evolutionary sense,
the influence of other, above all superordinate structures should also be perceptible - dream-like, in structures of thought, will, logic and sensation, i.e. in elements of the "Gestalt"
in the broader sense.
In addition, many concepts, including opposing ones such as representationalism and enactivism, favor explanations within the evaluation and self-perception system of the "bubble"
of the species "human being": with a preference for the sensory organs and the voluntary musculoskeletal system as well as the consideration of the individual.
For example, there is no consideration of the "movement of the environment" within the organism through the activity of the digestive organs in a unit of time
does not take place at all in my opinion. It should be noted here that all food is ultimately individuals of other species, with which the digestive has a common evolutionary origin.
Food therefore has potential cognitive information for the person eating it (which makes sense, because how else could substances from the environment, used as medicine, have a healing effect?
Except, of course, in the absence of a substance in the body itself).
Nevertheless, in a nested system of micro- and macrocosms, not a single species is superfluous or unimportant, however small it may be.
There always remains an evolutionary sense. In my opinion, this is a considerable opportunity for the development of human society to reach the limits of human biopsychosocial
possibilities as a species by paying close attention to this when dealing with fellow creatures of different and same species.
Science looks for universal rules, causal relationships. The pursuit of insight and knowledge involves the desire for objective statements,
wherein subjective influences of the researchers themselves seem to be a negligible size.
The objectivity of science is in my opinion a fallacy, the "human" factor tends to be neglected. Science is done by people and not only
subject to socio-political factors, but also subjective like the personality of each individual researcher.
The "first-person perspective" is therefore always contained in scientific papers.
These affect mainly theory and interpretation of empirical results, and limit the potential capacity of the overall system.
It scatters not in correlative way to an ideal average, who then ideally corresponds with best approximation to the "objective" result,
but these "deviations" run by biological, psychological and social rules.
Science and experience do not confront each other as opposite poles in my opinion, as Varela (Varela et al, 1995, p 13)
postulated, but the experience flows in unconsidered and unconscious manner into the science.
It is neither neutral nor scatters the "objective truth" as a kind of subjective variance around an optimal average. The established science
does not seem to be aware that and to what extent individual influences of the researcher himself flow into the research.
The objective result is only objective within a kind of individual "filter bubble", depending on the transcendence abilities of the
own personality.
Here, in my view fits well the concept of "autopoiesis", thus, for example, THOMPSON (2007) describes the property of autonomous biological,
living systems to obtain themselves and to reproduce itself: (p 101: ... "the shape or pattern of the autopoietic organization
is did of a peculiar circular interdependence between at interconnected web of self-regenerating processes and the self-production of a
boundary, examined did the whole system persists in continuous self-production as a spatially distinct individual").
In the above concept a biological system is meant as a whole; it is made no statement to what extent the individual parts - ie
in relation to man - this means the physical, mental and emotional processes are autopoietically organized. In my view,
the first-person perspective distorts the research direction (third-person perspective) by a species-specific level of autopoiesis,
included here especially in the mental expression.
The concept of autopoiesis can be in my opinion very well apply to the mental portion of human cognition, what therefore indirectly relates
to the direction and intensity of research. The research thus serves species-specific interests under species-specific point of view,
but not in an objective point of view.
Examples of mental autopoiesis in overall experience image of man are slightly to give: alone the different, oscillating in time unit
and contradictory thought processes, which all appear in the first-person perspective logical and correct, but apparently correlate with
physical conditions and emotional moods. Another aspect is the preferred saving of informations which are "matching" to the own inner world -
in opposition to "inappropriate" informations, which are rather forgotten or suppressed. It is significant here that the individual does not
experience consciously the contradictory nature of the mental (semblance)-causality; the mental processes are not independent purposeful,
but follow an arbitrary, serving their own "protecting boundary" of their own apprehension and experienced world in an autopoiesistic sense.
What THOMPSON (2007) says about the organization of a single living cell, can also be described to the organization of all aspects of human:
"....a cell continuously produces itself as a spatially bounded system, distinct from its medium or milieu" (p 92).
Especially the species-specific sense of superiority of humans over the other forms of life speaks for autopoiesis in thinking (and also
acting) of man, presumably corresponds with that of the other forms of life when trying to put in their position, where all species
of biosphere due to their different physiological structure must have different embodied action and experience worlds,
in which they themselves with their specific skills must be in the focus of their self-awareness. Any living creature "protects" thus itself
physically, affectively (higher life forms) and mentally (human obviously the only specie).
In this context the generic term "cognitive science" is very interesting from a meta-perspective, which deals with the especially
humans (ergo with itself) ascribed cognitions. So indirectly, the perception and importance of the property of human thought increased,
which distorted the perception of the functionality of the Cortex in my opinion.
"Cognitive" strongly oriented to the mental, even if the definitions are most more comprehensive: STEPHAN and Walter (2013, p.1) regard in
cognitive performances that property, which makes complex systems capable of the perception of a problem to come to a corresponding solution
(including possible action).
Another definition sees cognition not independent of the context of interacting organism within an environment over
the sense organs and physical action (see THOMPSON, 2007, p.13: .... "cognition is the exercise of skillful expertise in
situated and embodied action. Cognitive structures and processes emerge from recurrent sensorimotor patterns of perception and action").
Nevertheless, distinction is often made between cognitions and emotions (see THOMPSON S. 12) and thus the concept of "cognitive" narrower
and thus moved into the vicinity of the mental. I use hereinafter the wider term of cognition, which includes physical, mental and
emotional processes. Also I missed in the definition of Thompson the inner-body processes beyond sensorimotor action.
The sensorimotor processes depict in my opinion only the consciously perceivable part of the interaction; each visceral and internal organic activity
is for me equally as much a part of the cognitive system. They rather depict the unconscious part of the interaction and are therefore difficult
for mental detection in the first-person perspective.
Projections here means not the classical sense of "representations", as a sensomotoric input-output relationship between an objective outside world and
a figure in the inner world, but as a senso-viscero-motoric detection of external stimuli, which builds the human experience space in an
enactive way, concerning the entire body. Contrary to popular interpretation as sensorimotor, concerning conscious perception
and conscious action, to some extend "two-dimensional", here is meant the body in its entirety, "three-dimensional", the
unskilled and subconscious including. The body in its entire volume constitutes as it were the metaphor of the entire brain,
the physical input in its structure and totality is the basis for the enactive development of cognitive experience spaces.
"Representations" in the classical sense refer only to the consciousness easily accessible in humans, the obvious; here the concept of
projections relate to all areas of the body, the entire body comprising, regardless of consciousness.
The unconscious is assumed to be in a constant presence, neuro-physically hierarchically without structural difference.
Thus projections received something abstract and are in my opinion quite compatible with the concept of enactivism.
In the classical sense, they correspond only to a disembodied inattentive reflection ("entkörperte unachtsame Reflexion"
VARELA et al, 1995, p 51), a thinking without inclusion of one's body. In contrast, the "mindful embodied reflection" concerns on the
relationship between body and mind in the actual experience ("Beziehung zwischen Körper und Geist in der wirklichen Erfahrung", p.53).
Since the enactive physicalization at the level of the brain includes a metaphor of the structure of the entire body, by
suitable diagnostic long-term measurement methods on the surface of the head, statements about the functionality of the individual
somatopsychic system in relation to the entire body are possible:
via empirically determined localized data pattern in relation to
different situations (intra-individual) as well as in relation to a population (between individuals).
"Connection science - human, consideration of the third-person knowledge from the first-person perspective, in subject to the ability
of autopoietic influences of oneself"
The best overcome lies in the individual personal development of every individual researcher as a link of
sciences, not only at the cognitive level, but in the sense of wholeness both emotionally and in the formation of a
reflexivity.
One way to do this is at individual level the meditation and programmatic strict ethics to commit the sciences on a
positive aspect and also to release personal energies.
But not the optimized human adapts to "the" sciences; they themselves are transformed and optimized by the aspect of wholeness.
1) Brain as a projection surface for the organs of the body
Organizational embedding of the brain, extending the concept of "autopoiesis"
In my opinion, the applicability of the concept of "autopoiesis" is underestimated. It is primarily used to explain the imaginable, but not to derive assumptions from it
that could go beyond the human framework. It is not clear, why a concept, that claims validity for a system of multicellular organisms sets an a priori limit in the realm
of the conceivable and does not allow for universality, even in the "top-up" area.
Model of a neurophysiological functional level of a physical projection of all cells of the body under the aspects of
symmetry and hierarchy in brain centers. Integration of bodily projection and enactivism into a model of "complete embodiment".
The brain of an organism fits organizationally into the autopoietic basic order in the same way as explained above. There is a special feature here: it is not (directly) connected
with the environment and receives all external information exclusively via the organs of the body. It fully stages its information in a species-specific manner, with the organs themselves
pre-selecting the information and thus obtaining a species-specific sub-organization.
A complete causal relationship is to be assumed here between all organs of the body and the brain; Psychological properties should only have a correlative relation to cortical localities.
In relation to the psyche, the body with its processes is to be ascribed a kind of "blueprint" function, which may or may not be followed by psychological processes.
Based on the subdivision of the 3 germ layers in the ontogenetic development, 3 different classes of "external world" - relationships of the organs of the body are to be described:
such of ectoderm, mesoderm and endoderm kind in the basic position. The ectoderm organs (developed from the ectoderm cotyledon) fulfill, among other things, the "classical" external world
relation via the sense organs. This relationship is mostly characterized by both distance and temporal immediacy. The mesodermal organs fulfill the balance functions of the body in the
environment - both through motor movement and the creation of certain equilibrium within the body. Finally, the endoderm organs are primarily the digestive organs. So here the environment
moves into the body, it is analyzed, excreted and assimilated. This relationship to the outside world is less distant than that of the ectodermic organs, but it takes place more slowly,
more persistently and under the factor of time.
In my opinion, the organs do not only project information of the outside world to the brain, where they are enacting, staging and forming meta-levels and reducing detailed information
further and further among each other. (e.g. visual system: from the eye to the detection of electromagnetic oscillations to pattern and object recognition in the primary and secondary
visual system at the brain level to the classification into a complex system with the addition of other information from other organs). Ultimately, the entire brain should be there in
its locality, locally in different algorithms, primarily for staging the information of the organs of the body. Every point within the brain deals with, so to speak, one information of
an organ, which can always be traced back to specific external information under a specific temporal aspect. So according to this there are also no association centers, decision centers
or something similar. All of this should be able to be assigned to specific organ information - as something of a kind of meta information of these organs.
Interestingly, all information must be transmitted via nerve pathways and there via at least one synaptic cleft. All information that is passed on is therefore available in
electrically and chemically induced oscillatory patterns. In addition, there is an evolutionary filtering of what is assessed as relevant for transmission, which is why an
interactive relationship with the environment. Ultimately, therefore, the "world" constructed by the organism plays a subordinate role as long as the evaluating
organism itself retains in its function during the interaction with the world. Presumably, the "world" created is an evolutionarily determined successful variant (among a theoretically
infinite number of possible variants). Therefore, each species is basically a specific variant of an oscillation pattern within many others of the overarching organizational pattern
"earth biotope".
Feature: digestive organs and the digested
The "endodermic principle" presented here has a special position: First, the principle of "moving the environment within the body" is not explicitly mentioned in enactivism, although
the whole body is meant as a cognitive experience. In addition, frontal areas in particular should come into question here as localities in the brain, which in neuroscience are generally
ascribed to psychological processes. But what is the digestive environment? The food is living beings with the same origin as the nourisher from a unifying earth biotope.
Both, food and nourisher are evolutionarily interrelated. The nourishing individual presumably receives cognitive information that could be actively used to strengthen his or her own organism.
Thus, as a result of the virtually perpetual digestive process, the inner and the outer world are basically little apart. Both are part of an ongoing organizational upheaval within
larger organizational units (species, species group, totality of species, earth biotope, solar system biotopes, galaxy biotopes, universe biotopes - apart from the smaller units such
as single-celled organisms). The attention of each individual (or entity) is subjectively distorted inside.
Cortex:
- Operation from a holistic perspective, including the inner organs - assumption of primary and subsequent centers of the interior organs -
assumption of equal, neurologically exoderm-, endoderm and mesoderm attributable body areas - adoption of convergent and divergent
projections of the body in the brain - acceptance of the precedence of somatic prior to psychological localization and
calling into question the theory of neuronal psychic correlates -
The brain here is an example for the above described way of unconscious interpretation and the direction of research in the sciences.
Here now should be only the empirical findings in brain research, which are already available, evaluated and assigned by other principles.
These are symmetry, congruence, analogy and hierarchy.
They should be combined to a holistic model
- knowing that the now dominant model underlies also a preliminary assumption about a particular image of man, an expected operation.
To illustrate this, the chapter "cortex" as the main chapter is embedded into chapters, with which it does not seem to be relate.
Science is seen here in her attempt, to examine the reality of objective criteria, restricted by the subjective limitations of their individual
members (in the narrow sense the researchers). Meditation is seen critically here in their probably exclusive investigation as an object
during scientific research. Instead they will be seen in this context as an individual ability to detect the subjective perception,
thereby increasing the flexibility and effectiveness of science. Ethical principles should be considered as an essential tool,
to avoid animal testing, among other.
Only roughly should be made a relationship between the three entities, most detailed described in the chapter
"Cortex". In my opinion it would be interesting to extend these considerations on other science fields.
2) Hyperdimensionality of the functionality of life
Holistic organizational embedding of life, from a single-celled organism to a universal biotope, by extending the concept of "autopoiesis"
In my opinion, the concept of "autopoiesis" is underestimated in its applicability. It is primarily used to explain the imaginable, but not to derive assumptions from it to derive
assumptions that could go beyond the human conceptual framework. It is not clear, why a concept, that claims validity for a system of multicellular organisms sets an a priori limit in the realm
of the conceivable and does not allow for universality, even in the "top-up" area. The human species alone harbors billions of unicellular organisms
within its microbiome, which function both as an individual life and within the superordinate "human" system - why shouldn't the same also apply, for example, to individual species
as well as for the functioning of these species within the larger unit "earth biotope"? Likewise, why shouldn't the Earth biotope also be one biotope among many (the Milky Way)
which in turn belong to a larger unit? At the end of this "top-up" thinking would then be galactic systems that would actually work towards a unity of life on an overall universal level.
There are 2 areas that touch on these thoughts. On the one hand, matter follows a similar dimensional law in its vibrations and circular movements. On the other hand,
the autopoetry assumption would mean that all biotopes of all dimensions have a vested interest in reproducing themselves. This would mean that not only is the Earth biotope not unique
in the universe, but the biotope would not be bound to the Earth, would exist several times in the universe and is also older than the Earth - just as a species on Earth is represented
by a multitude of individuals. The earth biotope would be nothing more than a plant that develops from a seed. Contrary to Darwin's assumptions, the Earth's species are like organs that
are inherent to the Earth's biotope from the beginning and "come to fruition", so to speak. The totality of all reproductive possibilities on earth would be nothing more as a universal
principle on all levels, ultimately in the entire cosmos, ancient and presumably in eternal continuity. The inheritance of the function would probably come before the inheritance of form.
The theory of panspermia should be understood here in the sense of a normal path of reproduction in the sense of autopoiesis, whereby It is assumed that every single-celled organism in a
biotope ultimately contains all the information of the original biotope.
It is possible that there are organisms of the earth biotope on earth that carry the ability of a germ of the biotope over large spatial and temporal distances to suitable other planets
(the information should potentially be present in all species and individuals as in a seed, but not necessarily the dispersal function). The principles of reproduction would therefore
not be a causal peculiarity of evolution within the earth's biotope, but a universally occurring process that has been taking place for an indeterminate period of time and spans dimensions.
It may sound utopian, but it follows the core of what the theory of autopoiesis says for single and multicellular organisms.
There is also a third area: the dimensionality and thus interweaving of the individual areas of life experienced results in an overarching importance of each organism regardless of its size,
as everything is connected to everything else. This means that the smallest (possibly self-experiencing) individual is just as important as the largest. And in the context of the wholeness
of each individual, it is not only physical vitality that is important, but also mental and spiritual vitality. This then results in paying attention to positive thoughts and feelings,
in waking waking and sleeping, in the imagination and ultimately in the anticipation of (inevitable) death.
It is possible that there are organisms of the earth biotope on earth that carry the ability of a germ of the biotope over large spatial and temporal distances to suitable other planets
(the information should potentially be present in all species and individuals as in a seed, but not necessarily the dispersal function).
The principles of
reproduction would therefore not be a causal peculiarity of evolution within the earth's biotope, but a universally occurring process that has been taking place for an indeterminate period
of time and spans dimensions. It may sound utopian, but it follows the core of what the theory of autopoiesis says for single and multicellular organisms.
Here the theory follows the observation that, on the one hand, in nature
many single-celled organisms inside and outside an organism "function" as a whole despite their own life, and that various organisms must also be parts of a comprehensive earth biotope,
on the other hand, a similar order exists in the physical realm, where particles are in motion at different dimensional levels, both on a small and large scale.
And since "life" seems to be somehow linked to matter, such a nesting would not be inconceivable.
At this point, in my opinion, there are cross-references to the theory of "panspermia", with the difference that this is not about an interplanetary random distribution of microorganisms,
but about a biological transmission of "life" in the sense of "autopoesis" in different dimensions as a regularity in the entire universe. In addition, such a dimensionally nested, universal life fundamentally speaks
in favor of the theory of "panpsychism", since theoretically any matter could be part of a larger system of universal life, and this would not necessarily be grasped by humans.
Possibly the "human" species performs an important
function for the earth biotope without being aware of it (due to its biopsychosocial self-centeredness, which is presumably just as universal). as a by-product, so to speak.
Ultimately, the system of "life" could be regarded as uniform and simple in essence, only to the view from outside, which theoretically would not be possible at all , because the observer
is always a part of the system, everything appears chaotic and complicated and connections are obscured. The viewer seems to explore the world through their own species-specific "embodiment".
Thus, the first (human) theory of space was created using the visual system by looking up at the sky and a geocentric view of the world, which subsequently had to be overcome to create a
heliocentric model. This placing oneself at the center could be explained by the concept of "autopoiesis" as a kind of normal developmental path of cognition. However, this would also mean
that there could still be many undiscovered areas of knowledge whose cornerstones are based on misconceptions due to species-specific characteristics. In my opinion, the most common
"mistake" lies in the idea of a "truth" and the insistence on it, that one's own knowledge then represents "the" truth - ultimately the necessity of human communication.
But the above criticism of the assumption that the brain contains physical and mental localizations (especially in humans) contains physical and mental localizations also belongs in
my opinion in this area. However, the assumption of body-related cognition under autopoiesis should then also apply apply to all levels of life, both micro and macro. A macro level probably
does not automatically mean a meta-consciousness. The interesting question here, however, is whether a higher degree of cultural knowledge requires a certain type of networking
of the same individuals of a species, which, in addition to a quantitative number, also possess a certain variance. In other words: the greater the extent of permitted and tolerated talents
and personal diversity in a cultural unit, with a large number of individuals at the same time, the greater the availability of species-specific, cultural cognitive resources.
3) Role of the human being in the Earth biotope hypersystem
If the earth biotope is seen as something small and frequently occurring in the universe, the question arises as to the position of the human species in relation to the overall system and
to the other living beings in the same biotope. The different species behave in relation to each other (nutrition) and in relation to the whole presumably in a balance, as well as with a
direction of evolutionary development per unit of time (at the thought of a seed that unfolds according to its inherent potential).
I would ascribe an equivalent to the species "human" as a "flower" when the thought of a plant remains, for the following reason: Humans appear to be the only species on earth Earth that
lives in a cumulative culture or has the ability to build one. Not only that: unlike ants and bees, for example, which also live in communities, their cultural life is variable, seemingly
indeterminable, possibly in exponential form - in contrast to the species described here, whose states always seem to be the same. For human cultural development, the following formula could
apply in a figurative comparison: "Product of the number of individuals and (permitted) individual variability". Small, isolated societies live a rudimentary life, while there may be no upper
limits the larger and more variable the number of individuals is. A society with tens of billions of individuals who all understand the same language (using AI) may have possibilities that go
beyond the imagination of current cultures. Who wants to define the limits of human development? Perhaps what we have today, in the metaphor of a flower that has blossomed, is merely a delicate
beginning of blossom development. Everything would basically not be a special position of a species, but merely part of a development within a larger, holistic structure.
This explains why one species nevertheless seems to occupy a special position within the biotope, would lie in a special function for this biotope. In my opinion, it could be
autopoietically justified in the sense of a self-reproduction of the biotope without being the agent itself, e.g. through contamination of the earth-surrounding space with
specialized protozoa as a "by-product".
Over longer distances and longer periods of time, "germs" of the earth's biotope, which carry the plants of the same, would come into life-friendly environments and could, so to speak,
"reproduce" there. This would also mean that all the functions that humans ascribe to themselves, such as consciousness, intelligence, etc. - in addition to their role for themselves -
would ultimately be merely a necessary characteristic for the exercise of higher-level functions. The current state of development can be extremely small in relation to what is theoretically
possible. This type of cognitive expansion also presupposes individual variability: the more differentiated the talents, characteristics and views of individuals in society are possible,
the greater the theoretical cognitive potential of the whole.
However, the cognitive potential does not only lie within the own species "human", but also in the co-species, i.e. between the species (of the same biotope): Not only through cognitive potential
is available not only through observation of nature, through visual perception, but also through nutrition and digestion. Ultimately, all information from the outside travels via
nerve pathways via synaptic clefts, i.e. electrically and chemically encoded via oscillations and ultimately decoded for utilization. At a physical, functional level, the organism may not care wether
external information comes from as long as it is effectively decoded for the individual. digestion must therefore have the same cognitive potential as perception, ultimately the only the effect is
different. Mental processing should be congruent with physical processing, where the organisms to be digested are related organisms of the same biotope. All "fellow creatures", whether plant, animal,
fungus, bacterium, virus or microbiome, should therefore in our own best interest be treated with care (some are better encountered at a distance) and mindfulness.
The cognitive capabilities of the human species within its culture also speak in favor of conflict resolution without war; Military expenditure is ultimately a waste of resources
and energy that could be put to better use elsewhere. In nature, the predominant orientation is growth and change; the goals of the human species can ideally be no different. So,
hope and confidence dominate fear and despair. The will to peace should be stronger than the will to fight. As an example: Fear as an intention could justify a distribution war for
the best agricultural resources. Hope and confidence could give rise to AI-based agriculture, in enclosed spaces everywhere on and under the earth or in the sea, as extensive permaculture
using photosensitive harvesting units (instead of large-scale harvesting machines, for which cultivation is done in monoculture monoculture), thus also providing a foundation for agriculture
in any hostile environment, even in space. Whether the latter makes sense is another question. Here is merely a matter of showing how the basic mental attitude favors or restricts the
availability of cognitive resources.
However, the "human" species lives as a primate in a hierarchically organized society in which some are "more equal than others". Inequality is likely to fluctuate in the long term
oscillates around a mean value that is characterized by permanent distribution struggles, whereby neither total equality nor total inequality is possible in the long term.
I find it interesting that humans usually mistakenly assume that in hierarchically organized communities of apes, the physically strongest animal is at the top. It seems to be only the animal
that brings the most benefits to the individual members as a whole. It is possible that the same applies to human communities.
4) Relationship between dream, fantasy, will and reality
This area is the most speculative, but there should be a connection between dream, fantasy, will and "reality". Why is there "form", and why does every living being live in a "story",
its own phenomenal world of experience, while life consists merely of changing patterns of oscillations? Why this "effort"? Perhaps every living creature lives in its
own history, whether primate or mammal, animal or plant. Why not every single-celled organism and not every biotope as a unit? Epigenetics is a model, but in general the dynamics
of each individual "story" should provide an impetus for change in the overall situation of each individual.
The theory of "embodiment" can be used to hypothetically derive a kind of "psychic body", be it mental or emotional, when the shape and functioning of the physical body
influences and determines thought and action in a specific way. For me, the question still arises as to what came first: the body or even the "idea" of a kind of species-specific existence,
which then determines the physique? At least after individual death, there is no longer any need for any structure, like a plant of which only the seed remains (and thus still a form).
Dualism between matter and spirit is not necessary here; both can be seen as two sides of the same coin, so to speak, if the functional aspect is taken into account:
Not only do the physical organs fulfill constructive, balancing and/or excretory functions, but the same function also exists in the process of thinking, feeling and ultimately acting,
over a long evolutionary period of time. A healthy mind requires a healthy body and vice versa. Ultimately, it also seems to be the consequence of the theories of
embodiment and enactivism that the two are mutually dependent. In my opinion, the definition of "enactivism" lacks a reference to the internal organs:
the flow of food through it is also an active movement in the environment (in fact, it is rather the environment that moves in the organism), since food and the nourished person
both have the same evolutionary origin and thus cognitive information is available that the organism knows how to evaluate.
It is therefore important to strive as far as possible for a unity of these "worlds", in which the phenomenal experience comes before a separation into reality and fantasy.
The individual areas of experience should not be in opposition, but should be the same: the values that apply in the waking state should also apply in the dream state,
in any fantasy based on substances or the like. Ultimately also in death, because why should other values apply there than those recognized so far? Or vice versa: what better values
can be added in death that have not yet been recognized in life? After all, the values once found to be "good" should always apply, regardless of what is phenomenally experienced,
whether one "is" or "is not". Whether there is a rebirth or not is also irrelevant, as the values are universal in perception and are therefore independent of one's own appearance,
form and "world".
The will to achieve a goal structures the "self" independently of "reality" and changes it in the long term. That is why the goal can never be to achieve "mediocrity"
but only the best possible, the highest. Symbolically: "If I, as a snail, feel that the moon would be the ideal place for me, then I will set off there immediately."
Reality would be a different matter, I would have to endure the contradiction, if necessary through the state of meditation. But on a subconscious level, I would "program" myself for my own
possibilities in the best possible way. Perhaps a better example: even if my marriage will be mediocre in comparison in the long term, with ups and downs, it doesn't need to stop me not
prevent me from starting the "best there is" as a goal. In a world without any real fixed points of reference, truths or certainties, the goal provides the structure, so to speak,
biopsychosocial (ultimately human) form.
Before 30 years ago I got the idea during a meditation that in the Cortex-theories the internal organs were "forgotten" - they take the place of
the "association centers", they occupy the space that are attributed to "association centers" and complete by extending the theory of the
division into primary and secondary assignement areas of LURIJA (1992)*, and completed therefore the entire cortex as a primary physiological
information processing unit.
Reading theories creates images, feelings and thoughts that lead to other associations, as does observing nature. Science appears as something
theoretically unlimited, but practically limited to a narrow area of human perception and comprehension. It fulfills a need for
stability, objectivity, reality and thus personal security, which ultimately means a restriction of possible perspectives.
Despite the discomfort of uncertainty, a perspective based on subjectivity, relationality and temporary hypotheses ultimately represents an expansion of
all individual possibilities without "losing the ground under one's feet", as one continues to "be".
The laws of life appear to be simple, but from the perspective of the observer, who can never be independent of the whole, a highly complex impression is created.
Simplicity is likely to be a prerequisite for universality.