A theory of phase transitions in thought / consciousness

Going along with what I have been writing in other topics here, I think that the history of human thought and consciousness is marked by phase transitions similar to how natural selective evolution works by punctuated bursts of change; I'm not much of a student of history but I can identify a few phase transition points, obviously there was ancient Athens and then Christ in Rome, these were two such points or perhaps one spread out point, then there was the scientific revolutions in Europe at the end of the medieval era, then there was Kant and Hegel comprising another protracted one, and from there a few smaller phase transitions were created: through Marx, through Freud and through Nietzsche we had three of them in short succession. There are certainly more that I'm not aware of.

Per my definition of consciousness, each such phase radically redefines what it means to think and to be conscious. Consciousness is created by its contents and by the quality and and contents of those contents. As new kinds of contents are created and experienced these amass in individual minds to produce new ways of thinking, new forms of being conscious. Human problems are really just problems of how we think and what we think, so when there is a radical shift here problems are framed in new ways and reach new solutions, producing then new problems or new takes on the old problems. As far as I can tell each phase transition point was an uplift and progress in human thought and consciousness, so the general historical trend is "upward" toward more expansive and powerful, reality-driven thinking and consciousness.

America after the revolutionary war and with its new Constitution also probably is a phase transition too. So with this conflux today of competing forms of thought and consciousness we have a very complex and dynamic daemonic situation. Marx competes with Nietzsche and Christ, Nietzsche competes with these, America and its ethos and law competes with these too while also incorporating them in certain ways. Each former phase transition lives on as the receded structure within the present moment, and newer phase transitions must deal with the former ones by both struggling against them and reframing them in new ways. I think modern global capitalism and postmodernism are signs of this ultimate and very deep tectonic conflict. Neither global capitalism or postmodernism are really phase transitions, they seem more like outward symptoms of the former most recent phase transitions that took place through Kant-Hegel and then into Marx, Freud and Nietzsche. These thinkers have basically defined how things are viewed and how things work today.

We seem to be waiting for the next phase transition to occur. Since these are each revolutions in thought and consciousness itself, directly and literally, the next phase transition will probably come from a single individual mind and its collective works. Who knows when that historical explosion will come, or event if it ever will since it's possible that the current confused situation of multiple small phase transitions in perpetual antagonism and mutual irreducibility could keep a situation going where no new phase transitions are able to appear. But I actually don't believe that, I think the next one is going to occur once a single genius thinker and writer is able to assume this collective history enough to truly initiate a radical departure and truly new way of thinking. Until then, all the world's problems are just a kind of stasis holding for the eventual rebirth. These problems today cannot be solved at their own level, even the solution must perpetuate the conditions of the problems themselves rooted in the current paradigm of thought and consciousness that define human being today.

Proper philosophy must work toward the eventual birth of a new phase transition. We should dedicate ourselves to truly assuming everything that is there to assume, writings new codes and flows into the tectonic substances of historical cumulative human being. It is perhaps also worth noting that nearly every true phase transition of the past was followed by a breakdown of the current social order and its subsequent reconfiguration into totally new forms; mostly this involves war, and immense social upheaval. It's possible but I don't think necessary that such a situation could follow the arrival of the next phase transition, whenever it gets here.

Well, when you say "thought and consciousness" I am assuming you are talking about educated philosophical thought and consciousness. I find it difficult to relate what you said above to the whole of human kind.

Seems to me that the masses haven't evolved much over the past 4,000 years. Sure, there have been technological advances but not much change in the "thought and consciousness" of the masses (the common people).

I'm not saying there haven't been attempts by some to "create a better world" but it seems very few are listening. Seems to me that we haven't advanced much since we, because of necessity, left the trees and started eating meat.

I think that if you took an average person today and an average person 4000 years ago, and compared them side by side in terms of their "thought and consciousness" you would find they are almost entirely different, perhaps more different than we can even fathom. We see everything differently now; other people, nature, space, society, ourselves, animals, probably almost everything looks and feels different today than it did 4000 years ago.

Today we have ideas and ways of thinking and feeling that didn't even exist 4000 years ago. And those 4000 year old peoole had their own ways, ones probably unfavorable to us today.

I read a lot of Greeks, and I read them because they are actually like me, in that these men think and feel like me, whereas not a single post-Roman author has managed to convey anything that isn't at best deliciously alien to me. Modern novels that I like such the Catcher in the Rye, perhaps the only American novel I value as noble, and Camus' L'Etranger, are about the impossibility of pathos in this society. I dont think this society "exists" properly - any move back to the Greeks, is a move forward into existence.

Parodites brings this forward with the Doric, which he has rediscovered by ennobling Christianity through his own lens.  I am someone who considers Thales to be the philosopher that is still being misunderstood, and needs to be understood before even a single step forward can be made.

If our society will come to rise to a proper reality, wherein people can be alive, which is not now the case, then that will be a result of these philosophies being understood, as they came about precisely as life's refusal to submit to this death.

The thing is, all the writing here that is directly to a point, has already making changes at a fundamental level. The value of power and the power of value, these dont need human self-awareness to spread through them  -- the human mass-mind is merely a plastic. Humans tend not to exist to themselves. Trolls that read my posts and talk about them function as a semiconductor, not as entity.

The Greater Entity is Value Philosophy, the logos of the Master of the Earth.

All the work I care to do in philosophy is doable in a decade - I've done the hard work in the first thirty thinking years of my life. I have decided that the focus must be fixed on the 9th Amendment of the Bill of Rights - I have recognized in uit the self-valuing code of the Constitution. Explicating article 9 sufficiently to its clearly intended Jeffersonian purpose, is enough to draft a Constitution of Mankind.

Jefferson wasn't up to explicating the logic and he damn well knew this, which is why he left the formulation so opaque. But to a philosopher its meaning is clear as day and hard as diamond. I'll take Jefferson's place now as Founding Father. Americans are too apathetic to fix their own country - thankfully they have touched realms like Mine, along the way.

ᚼᚼᚼ
ᚼᚼᚼ
ᚼᚼᚼ

The future US is in the hands of Odin, the bleeding, seeking god of independence and the number 9, now - It will take a while before the nobler forces will come up on top. Do not count on any of this becoming visible to the untrained, non-military eye in the fist six years after this announcement.



All of the US presidents worth their salt (of the earth) have been military commanders. None that is not such a man can ever rule over an Empire. This is pretty damned obvious.... so we know where we need to be looking.

It is not entirely unlikely that the 2020 elections will have somewhat of a coup d'Etat feeling to them.

As the illusion of moral Globalism falls away, as it has done now, what is left is the necessity of overt military control. Thjis can only be purely nationalistic and imperial - and it has to be done in concord with other national powers.

Economic Globalism is dead; seeing that a small region like Wallonia (the region of Brussels) can block a huge internationalist trade deal that the Institution Brussels wants to ratify, we can not seriously expect any such globalism to take effect smoothly ever again. A massive victory for philosophy, which I have decided to equate with freedom - as I have been the first to understand the concdept freedom as necessity, in 2011.

Right now Jupiter is rising and setting about two hours before the Sun [ on the latitude of New York, around 0520 EST today ].
I recommend to all those that are keen on some more independence, luck and power, to rise from bed at the moment Jupiter rises, and look to the East, and simply disentangle for all else besides your most lofty origins, and destinies - the very same thing, as a philosopher knows - the only Knowing that is also Being.

Well, I have understood the concept of freedom for a very long time. Even back to when I was a teenager.

Globalism will never be beneficial for the masses until all concepts of "nation" have been negated and removed.

A Cosmopolitan World. Dictated by the concept of freedom.

Sisyphus wrote:

Well, I have understood the concept of freedom for a very long time.  Even back to when I was a teenager.

Globalism will never be beneficial for the masses until all concepts of "nation" have been negated and removed.

A Cosmopolitan World.  Dictated by the concept of freedom.

I believe Freedom is particularly well understood by teenagers. I would in fact say that he who manages to continue the life he chooses as a teenager is free. But freedom qua teenage values is not necessarily a greater satisfaction than what a matured semi-boundness can produce; often the most free end up desolate or even in unmarked graves. However, the ones who manage to rise and set and rise like the sun, well we cant say any thing negative about them, because they are the very antithesis of that which can be brought down.

To slander the free is to crawl backward.

The receding horizon on each side: fear and disgust, open an abyss of truth;

Truth is the pathos of distance.

Freedom is the highest value because freedom really means: "freedom of something else / a value or standard or reality" because there is no freedom itself, only things being free.

So freedom is the first pillar of revaluation -- valuing.

Legal freedom such as in rights, culminates in a right to be free as such, and this is the intimation of self-valuing.

Freedom causes problems because it is worth so damn much.

And in Nietzschean terms, the revaluation is from "free from" to "free to".

and therin lies the conundrum; and the revelation that there were no created values to begin with!
Hahaha.

The revaluation of values is really the beginning of making values.

The Greeks, through the Tragic, incited the possibility in our spirit, it was pure wine and women and mushrooms and the Mediterranean vast azure future.

But we have to conquer space to be free. Can't unsee.

Capable wrote:

Freedom causes problems because it is worth so damn much.

Yeah. "Problems" is just one minor aspect of freedom, even where it doesn't exist.

Freedom, both "from" sand "to" isn't a problem but rather a challenge. Do we stay with the shepherd or do we risk our self to the fields where the wolves roam?

And actually, wolves is a bad example because wolves are pack animals. The lone wolf normally dies early in life. The cougar is a better example. The true lone survivor.

Keep talking in complex words, it hides that you aren't really saying anything at all.

Phase transition. I don't like McDonalds, but lets say tomorrow I wake up and like McDonalds. That is a phase transition, a phase transition of my consciousness.

People are limited by their genetic potentials, a brave new thinker isn't going to suddenly transform the masses, at most transform a small portion of individuals who already have the capacity and capability to hear the voice of reason.

garbage videos wrote:

Keep talking in complex words, it hides that you aren't really saying anything at all.

Phase transition. I don't like McDonalds, but lets say tomorrow I wake up and like McDonalds. That is a phase transition, a phase transition of my consciousness.

People are limited by their genetic potentials, a brave new thinker isn't going to suddenly transform the masses, at most transform a small portion of individuals who already have the capacity and capability to hear the voice of reason.

What we think and how we think isn't really genetically based. Only a genetic predisposition for 1) certain intellectual potential and 2) certain preferred interest/desires, is going to affect eventually what is thought and how well one thinks, but the effect from genetics here is quite minor.

Capable wrote:

garbage videos wrote:

Keep talking in complex words, it hides that you aren't really saying anything at all.

Phase transition. I don't like McDonalds, but lets say tomorrow I wake up and like McDonalds. That is a phase transition, a phase transition of my consciousness.

People are limited by their genetic potentials, a brave new thinker isn't going to suddenly transform the masses, at most transform a small portion of individuals who already have the capacity and capability to hear the voice of reason.

What we think and how we think isn't really genetically based. Only a genetic predisposition for 1) certain intellectual potential and 2) certain preferred interest/desires, is going to affect eventually what is thought and how well one thinks, but the effect from genetics here is quite minor.

No you are sadly mistaken.

There are two types of people, weak-minded and strong-minded.
90% of the world or so are weak-minded.
Genetic prediction in their tastes and behavoirs. Even naming (a produt of thought) is identical. Two seperated twins name their pet the same name.
This is a symptom of weak-minded type brains. Weak-minded type brains never grow, their structure never really alters signficantly, so their future thought patterns are mappable. Their neuronal configurations are incomplete.

Strong minded brains, their neuronal configs are complete, maximized. Preferences tend to fluxuate.

A weak minded brain, if raised in Muslimland will believe Muslimmism, if in China, chinaism, and if in America, Christianity.
But it's like all brands and flavors of the same poor logic. When you debate with such a creature it will use all of the same type of fallacies, except instead of pulling out verses from the Quran, it will flavor it with verses of the Bible and such.

garbage videos wrote:

Capable wrote:

garbage videos wrote:

Keep talking in complex words, it hides that you aren't really saying anything at all.

Phase transition. I don't like McDonalds, but lets say tomorrow I wake up and like McDonalds. That is a phase transition, a phase transition of my consciousness.

People are limited by their genetic potentials, a brave new thinker isn't going to suddenly transform the masses, at most transform a small portion of individuals who already have the capacity and capability to hear the voice of reason.

What we think and how we think isn't really genetically based. Only a genetic predisposition for 1) certain intellectual potential and 2) certain preferred interest/desires, is going to affect eventually what is thought and how well one thinks, but the effect from genetics here is quite minor.

No you are sadly mistaken.

There are two types of people, weak-minded and strong-minded.
90% of the world or so are weak-minded.
Genetic prediction in their tastes and behavoirs. Even naming (a produt of thought) is identical. Two seperated twins name their pet the same name.
This is a symptom of weak-minded type brains. Weak-minded type brains never grow, their structure never really alters signficantly, so their future thought patterns are mappable. Their neuronal configurations are incomplete.

Strong minded brains, their neuronal configs are complete, maximized. Preferences tend to fluxuate.

A weak minded brain, if raised in Muslimland will believe Muslimmism, if in China, chinaism, and if in America, Christianity.
But it's like all brands and flavors of the same poor logic. When you debate with such a creature it will use all of the same type of fallacies, except instead of pulling out verses from the Quran, it will flavor it with verses of the Bible and such.

Agreed on your point about identical twins, the similarities there do indeed point to deep genetic influences.

But when it comes to thinking this is acquired. Thought basically determines itself. When low quality thought is taught that is what people end up thinking like. Basically any human being can learn how to think well, provided he/she is taught how to do it.

Your strong/weak dichotomy is talking about how some people have more innate desire for truth. Some of this is genetic of course, but not all of it. And regardless of that innate desire, truthful thinking and a passion for thought and for truth can be taught to someone who doesn't really have the innate tendency for it.

The reason people born in a cultural geographic area tend to believe whatever beliefs are already present there is proof enough that I'm right when I say that thought is basically self-determining as influence as learning; it's simply that some people carry it forward more than most, arriving at the inevitable contradictions and contingency of the belief-thoughts they happen to be born into.

Capable wrote:

Your strong/weak dichotomy is talking about how some people have more innate desire for truth. Some of this is genetic of course, but not all of it. And regardless of that innate desire, truthful thinking and a passion for thought and for truth can be taught to someone who doesn't really have the innate tendency for it.

Do you really believe that you can just teach people to use logic and reason, ignore their dogmas, discard their dogmas?

No these people are magnetically attracted to dogmas and bullshit. Trying to reason with one is like a bitch with the block button.

garbage videos wrote:

Capable wrote:

Your strong/weak dichotomy is talking about how some people have more innate desire for truth. Some of this is genetic of course, but not all of it. And regardless of that innate desire, truthful thinking and a passion for thought and for truth can be taught to someone who doesn't really have the innate tendency for it.

Do you really believe that you can just teach people to use logic and reason, ignore their dogmas, discard their dogmas?

Yes of course you can.

Quote :

No these people are magnetically attracted to dogmas and bullshit. Trying to reason with one is like a bitch with the block button.

Once you try to convert them into upright thinking by the time they've already gone through shitty education and religious indoctrination it's basically too late.

As I was saying, humanity mostly teaches shitty thinking. Thinking is taught, it isn't innate. No feral child will develop a true sense of self or thinking ability. A genius is the result of years of careful learning and teaching, if not taught by other humans then by books (by good thinkers who aren't alive anymore).

The idea that thinking, either what or how we think, is entirely or even predominantly genetic is about the stupidest idea one can imagine. Such a belief merely reveals that the one who believes it was never taught how to think well, or even to understand what thinking really is. But maybe that's partly why you believe in reincarnation too.

As with all naturally emergent selfvaluing phenomena, thought arises at he juncture of a resourceful constitution and a stimulating environment. One must be genetically predisposed to some things to be able to think, but in general mankind is so predisposed. However, thinking people have done everything in their power to create conditions that make thought impossible to arise anew, spontaneously, emergent as nature, as "ones bliss" - rather it becomes academic, bureaucratic, systemic - and it is no longer thought, except at the highest peaks where the furnace concentrates in laserlike iconoclastic power and 'it gets fun' in a devilish way - for the extremely power hungry. In short, thought is largely perverse, pointless and deranged - but all that requires capacity for it.

To cure thought, purify it -

a simple principle such as selfvaluing goes a long way. A hygiene.

Trinity

VO: Sufficient Ontology, Foundational Philosophy, Logos
Tectonics: Phenomenology, Philosophy As World
Daemonology: Self-Creating Psychology, Comprehensive Philosophy

Capable wrote:

The idea that thinking, either what or how we think, is entirely or even predominantly genetic is about the stupidest idea one can imagine. Such a belief merely reveals that the one who believes it was never taught how to think well, or even to understand what thinking really is. But maybe that's partly why you believe in reincarnation too.

You're an idiot. You probably believe in eternal nothingness when we die.

Thinking is genetic. Just how the fuck do you think brains are made/ Through DNA code.
People have an inherent desire to think, some people do some people don't. Which are you?

"learning to think by books"
By books you mean words, even your choice of words is poor because you can learn online through words not books.
There is a type of thought that doesn't require words, mechanic thought emotional thought etc.

Tectonics awakens Plato, who has lain dormant until now.

His Idea is what Capable substantiates as seen within the VO paradigm of ubiquitous origin as Being; Meaning is indeed the origin of what we might call natural arrays, Species in their hierarchies and interconnected, separated and interlocked Worlds.

This is basic Meaning at the tectonic pressurepoint pushing forth the emergence/phenomenon Life;



All representation is organic, including digital bits.