In the thought system of symmetry, time does not exist. An event that occurred yesterday can also occur today or tomorrow...traumatic events of the past are not only seen in the unconscious as ever present and permanently happening but also about to happen
Ignacio Matte Blanco
Mythic thinking is how somalis make sense of their pastConsciousness is mediation and as such correlates with the development of
language - the more sophisticated the language the better differentiated the
consciousness. The focus on the dynamics of anti-symmetry/symmetry vs
asymmetry (and so mediation) is a focus on different STYLES of thinking.
Asymmetric thinking is what Jung called "Directed" thinking and covers the
use of words. Anti-symmetric/symmetric thinking is what Jung called "Mythic"
thinking and covers the less precise but more organic/holistic/immediate
format of senses (images, sounds etc)
Mythic, aka symmetric, thinking LACKS precision and is a style of thought
that can only be refined through use of directed thinking where mediation
dynamics aids in resolving finer details.
Mythic thinking is style of thinking we all share as a species and as such
has a logic element that lacks differentiation and so is tied to a ground
covered by the bi-conditional (If and only if); it is style that cannot deal
with the conditional thinking of directed thought - the asymmetry of
IF..THEN...
Mythic thinking demonstrates its primitive format, its tie to symmetry and
our speciesness, through its lack of direction, associationist format, and
being spontaneous; it is a style of thinking closely associated with dream
states (same logic applies - see Matte-Blanco's work on this in his "The
Unconscious as Infinite Sets")
Directed thinking demonstrates its more developed format by being
purposeful, organised (syntax focus) etc. and gives us a sense of direction.
Jung's focus on thinking styles comes from his essay "Two Kinds of Thinking"
and was influenced by William James' distinctions of directed and
non-directed thinking; non-directed aka mythic thinking is associated with
'fantasy' thinking
principle and pleasure principle - the latter mapped to phantasy.
Independent of all of their 19th/20th century theories comes neuroscience
work that brings out the play of anti-symmetry/symmetry (part-whole
dynamics) and asymmetry (mediations dynamics). Consideration of this
material brings out a correlation with Jung/James/Freud to some degree - the
sophistication that is going on is only brought out when we focus on
recursion and the emergence of languages from basic categories originally
tied to sense experiences (where our senses are customised by out neurology
into the experiences of wholeness, partness, static relatedness, dynamic
relatedness, and their composites) - thus in IDM etc we can map-out a lot of
classes of consciousness that mix the directed/not-directed formats.
The dynamics of asymmetric thinking, and so directed thinking, is in its
precision and so it is the necessary realm of better understanding
consciousness in that, with depth, it all becomes self-referencing and so
consciousness can describe itself by reference to itself through use of
analogies/metaphors. (this also brings out the benefits of 'talking cures'
for those with well-developed language skills and so consciousness; if not
developed well then alternatives are much better)
This precision form of self-referencing is NOT POSSIBLE using mythic
thinking - we can imagine images and from there get such precision as, for
example, clues to the benzene molecular structure but it required directed
thinking to 'seed' that process; IOW mythic thinking is a SUPPORT mechanism
for directed, but at the same time open to refinements through directed
thought.
The issues with mythic thinking is the degree of interpretation required due
to the over-emphasise on symbolisms 'coloured' with sensory data. As Jung
says in the above article:
"...one of the basic principles of analytical psychology is the dream-images
are to be understood symbolically; that is to say, one must not take them
literally, but must surmise a hidden meaning in them" p12 "The Basic
Writings of C. G. Jung" Princeton (also see Jung's analysis of William
James' in "Psychological Types")
The distinctions of metaphor/analogy processing and symmetric thinking is
well covered in the literature - symmetry offers MANY expressions of the ONE
meaning in that the symmetry, and so lack of direction, makes all metaphors
interchangeable, syntax as such is 'meaningless' and it is emotional highs
and lows that matter in getting a meaning. OTOH the hemisphere studies also
shows us a single context perspective that is more anti-symmetry and leading
into asymmetry and is more literal minded (or more so 'perfectly clear' no
hidden elements etc, all one context - directed, purposeful)
The precision issues come out in the studies in variations of directed
thinking, where children and primitive tribes utilise the surrounding
context to communicate - the languages are dependent upon, and so tied to,
local contexts and cover the creation of histories/legends/myths. Only with
sophisticated development of languages - due to contextual pressures,
competitive demands, to make distinctions - do the ties to local context get
broken and out emerges a universal form of language that takes its context
with it. At this point the literal nature of the myths become recognisable
as metaphors and not to be taken literally but what is 'hidden' IS to be
taken literally.
WE clearly see a development of consciousness from vague awareness through
mythic thinking and into directed thinking - we see this at the neurological
levels of direction developing well after the directionless (hippocampus
covers sequencing and develops well after the amygdala and its focus on
magnitudes in the form of emotional highs and lows - and on into the biases
of right hemisphere at birth to an emerging left hemisphere dominance in
dealing with sequence/precision (and so syntax over semantics)).
IOW directed, aka asymmetric, thinking is more refined, more precise, more
able to mediate in detail, than mythic thinking; our instincts may be
grounded in anti-symmetry/symmetry dynamics (and so the mythic) but our
development of consciousness as an agent of mediation is emergent from our
symmetric being. (The EIC work shows this - emotional assessments can be
notoriously missing of details that get picked-up by the precision of
consciousness and so get suppressed - but at the same time the social
elements of consciousness can suppress valid emotional assessments as being
'not appropriate at this time' - the EIC work can pick up on this
suppression)
What Leibniz covered in his focus on the Monad is a focus on symmetric, aka
mythic, aka topological, thinking (closed system, all is 'one'). What
Descartes covered is the emergence of directed thinking, the use of words to
make one aware of being aware, to write it down, to give it precision and
direction etc etc and so move into the realm of the mereological manifest in
the form of a unique being.
What the neurology shows us is the continued development of thinking where
the rational, directed, sequencing, thinking aids to refine the mythic,
parallel realm and so refine our intuition, our wisdom. You cannot have that
refinement without the development of asymmetric processes, directed thought
and the resulting emergence of specialist languages that transcend the
'dream states' of the primitive mythic.
The development of languages has led to the creation of a level of being, a
consciousness, that is dependent upon the dynamics of language to maintain
the realm; stop talking and you sink back into the symmetric and in doing so
sink back into living off instincts/habits and so the lacking of precision;
the surrendering of one's humanity for a more 'cooperative' social life as a
smart ape! (conscious beings mediate conflicts - less conscious beings
resort to fall back on their 'ape' natures and throw shit at each other.). A
such there is a 'battle' present where our species nature is naturally
symmetric and so naturally favouring conservation of energy through creation
of instincts/habits. The problem with this is that it can be too
dumbing-down in nature and so favours the reduction of developing a depth in
consciousness, we socially get too 'lite' and lose a sense of direction
(post modernism manifesting this development).
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Mind ... sage/18163
