Psychological Integration - Theory to personal and or Modelling to Theory

[Origins]

As the title describes. 

[ eventually I won't be able to edit this first post hence why I'm mainly leaving it blank ]

[Origins]

Ideational Stage:

As I look out into the world, who is the looker?

When I take in the outer landscapes of the world and they enter into my consciousness, what are they to my brain versus what are they to me?

And what I assign as me, what are these assignments other than narratives that have been created through my interaction with my brain based on those landscapes that have entered within me?

This psychological distance versus closeness I have for the people that exist in the world, how do they exist relative to the existence of my own consciousness? How do they exist in my mind versus their existence in the world that I perceive and eventually call the world?

Why does my consciousness look out "at the world" and call it a world? Why is it not merely an object? Why does it not have a direct emotional location outside of particular objects and people my mind has associated emotions with?

How did I come up with this notion of "brain"?

How did I come up with this notion of "consciousness"?

How did I come up with this notion of "I"?

If I did not come up with these assignments, if I am lost of this originality, what am I describing in this moment then that is "I"? That is anything that has assignment relative to this object that I perceive as my awareness?

Who gets to say what object I am other than the attributes they get to compare me to based on the narratives they've so far perceived?

Thus to "me", that I'm assigning as an object linguistically (why have I been?  - what level of psychological development is this and does it relate to a kind of psychological development), why have I arrived at "me" as the object to assign relative to my state of awareness? Why do "I" need this assignment?

If I don't know precisely what I am perceiving in the moment that "I" and "me" is constructed, I should wait.

When "I" no longer look out at the world, I see myself as the world itself.

This is a psychological adjustment.

If you notice yourself assigning "I" to yourself as you look out, suspend that notion while looking out, your consciousness will become the world and no longer just an "I" looking out.

But do we want this psychological adjustment?

What is its efficacy? While at the same time, what is the efficacy of "I"?

To answer these questions, we need to understand how narrative emerges in the first place. If we do not understand how narrative emerges through the assignment of personal, "I", and interpersonal, "we", values in the construction of determining the relationships with these features, we will ultimately fail. We will instead become ruled by the narratives of consciousness before we are even fully aware of their constructive processes and, dare I say it, purposes. Thus endeavour is in the understanding of narrative and how it is constructed within us, more than it is in understanding the content of the narrative. This is ultimately moving to a higher plane upon which existence is carried out by this notion of consciousness that we've constructed we operate by and through.

[Origins]

Ideational Stage:
 

What is this notion of awareness, and is it even an important property?

Are we even aware? Don't we merely judge such awareness by its relative capacity? We look into and compare amongst ourselves attributes of awareness and assign either higher or lower status of a beings level of awareness based on what we've constituted is awareness. Where's the awareness in that exactly? Perhaps there are various modes of awareness that exist in features that we've been biased towards saying have little to no awareness, perhaps there are key attributes of awareness itself, a category we've built through our interactions with one another which also happens to be more than just an intersubjectively agreed upon construct, that we severely lack, may not only never have but ultimately be completely incapable of having regardless as to what technological progress we make in this world.

Edited January 26, 2021 by Origins

[Origins]

Ideational Stage:
 

If originality is a rare trait among the human species, why is everyone so hell bent on saying they have an "I"? Shouldn't only very few people have an "I" if originality is rare?  To have a "I" is to be a God in some way, I don't see too may Gods walking around but that's just me maybe you see many.

To create an "I", you create distinctness, but what virtue does this distinctness have for it to warrant such distinctness from the rest of the world? What ethos? Just a feeling? So you've come into this existence with such distinctness and afterwards you will go back into the world through your remains where distinctness fades, you must have lived a very distinct life, no? Something that is not just distinct to humans, but all of life, all of nature, the entire planet, the entire universe. Please tell me more about this distinctness so I can bow down to your godliness and drink the wine of immortality that you've no doubt either drunk from or created in light of your own supreme powers.

Edited January 26, 2021 by Origins

[Origins]

THEORETICAL:

Locate, translate, trace, forecast and transform state:

Location: “I don’t really _____ ______”, being the subconscious feeling that appears as a conscious thought (notice the deception).

Translation:

• This probably appeared due to x, y and z

Trace:

• There is a relationship between these events, these inner experiences and the way I feel in response to this time, object, person, phenomenon, etc

Forecast:

• When x happens, y is likely to happen (i.e. when x event happens I’m likely to experience y, and z will likely be one of the possible outcomes)

Transform:

• In light of my forecasts and best tracing, I predict that I can adapt here and here, which might be a modification of a belief, value, even, environment, time, place, etc, etc. Just adaptation that serves higher grounds of creativity regardless as to the loss, you forecast and adapt for the better and wiser profit in the long run.

 

Edited January 26, 2021 by Origins

[Origins]

What is the ego?

First we must understand it on the level of generation.

Then we must understand it on the level of integration

Further we must understand it on the level of recycling.

And through the interaction of these dynamics we need to understand it on the level of transformation.

So that can be remembered via the following acronym, of course, GIRT. Rhymes with dirt, if you remember Joe Dirt, you'll remember Girt. 

I'll elaborate on these mechanisms in the future, and yes, this is simultaneously how we grow, heal and shift the ego in various ways relative to where awareness wishes to take it.

[Origins]

PSYCHOLOGICAL INTEGRATION IN THE CONTEXT OF STATE TRANSFERENCE

This is a great fail-safe idea I personally just came up with that works for me in terms of motivation, agency, direction:

I call it the intersectional reading of state - its the realisation that our state is the intersection of multiple narratives intersecting simultaneously, propping those individually strategically then watching the original state alter to the transformational state (simply the representation of change).

For example:
1A. Reading feeling/emotion

1B. Reading the thoughts that create your present story that you perceive subconsciously and consciously to make up your psychological state

1C. Reading your present direction

2A. Differentiating the feeling/emotion you need and activating it

2B. Differentiating the story / improved story you need to move you forward then activating that

2C. Differentiating the direction you need within that story to move you forward then activating that

I use simulation based visualisation to cater towards these ends here as well. So yeah, cool stuff works for me maybe it'll work for you too. 

After you use it once, it operates on a feedback loop if you notice carefully and if you're continuing to use it. Lastly, make sure you're biasing yourself towards a first person perspective, that always helps of course. I mean, perhaps there's creative alternatives I could share right now or that you would prefer but meh, just speaking generally here.

Remember to start from a pure awareness state obviously (which will positively reinforce being an enlightened douche like me eventually )

[Origins]

Reminding myself of the following comment I just made (important for this journal):

“And it’s not really ego so much, it’s just ambition” (or rather drive)

That’s an important distinction I don’t think is often made.

Someone can be simultaneously extremely unambiguous and yet have a huge ego, while the exact opposite is also true.”

Most people complete miss differentiating this adequately when they’re evaluating personalities.

Edited February 1, 2021 by Origins