The Adaptive Unconscious

paralleloscope

The Living Force
I'm not following what you're saying either dantem. Also 'higher intellectual centre' has no division, according to M., O. and G.
 

dantem

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Oxajil said:
dantem said:
Just consider it as being an interface with a nonconscious part of ourselves that remains connected with information that comes from one's own soul experiences, even if we're not aware of them. It's like the 'negative emotions' that are based on 'love' - as M's tells us - that could be seen as information (light/knowledge).
Hi dantem, I don't really understand the above. Could you please elaborate?
Hi Oxajil,

I mean, from the bits I've read in the book, the nonconscious seems to be a resource of something that is within us, but not of direct utilization to our conscious awareness. So I thought about past life experiences as something similar to an Adaptive Uncoscious, as information that is always with us in some way, but somewhat not accessible.

But then I've to read all the book first...
 

cubbex

The Living Force
dantem said:
Great read indeed! I'm half-way through it and that sub at page 63 was really interesting:

Is The Adaptive Unconscious More Sensitive To Negative Information?

Now we come to the most speculative point about differences between nonconscious and conscious processing: there may be a division of labor in the brain, in which the unconscious is more sensitive to negative information than the conscious self.
[...]animals and humans possess preconscious danger detectors that size up their environments very quickly. The sensory thalamus evaluates incoming information before it reaches conscious awareness. If it determines that the information is threatening, it triggers a fear response. In evolutionary terms, it can be seen how adaptive it is for the brain to trigger a fear reaction to be dangerous (i.e. negative) stimulus as soon as possible.
[...] There is increasing evidence that positive and negative information is processed in different parts of the brain, though the extent to which these different brain regions map onto conscious versus nonconscious processing is unclear. There is at least the possibility that the adaptive unconscious has evolved to be a sentry for negative events in our environments (19)

(19) - For evidence that negative and positive information is processed in different regions of the brain, see Davidson (1995) and Cacioppo, Gardner, and Berntson (1997).
This one goes directly to Mouravieff and Gurdjieff and their subdivision of the 'centers' in two halves.

Then the way he talks about the origin of these 'negative informations' reminds me of De Becker's Gift Of Fear and Gladwell's Blink books. There are nonconscious processes that can save your life, or let you get an unpredictable grip on certain situations.

Now having a negative part of a Higher Intellectual Center make much more sense in evolutionary terms, especially if 'evolutionary' is considered in G's terms. Just consider it as being an interface with a nonconscious part of ourselves that remains connected with information that comes from one's own soul experiences, even if we're not aware of them. It's like the 'negative emotions' that are based on 'love' - as M's tells us - that could be seen as information (light/knowledge).

At least this is what popped up in my mind :huh:
You need to study the concept, there's no negative side of the higher centers, and sexual center.
 

dantem

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Prometeo said:
You need to study the concept, there's no negative side of the higher centers, and sexual center.
Yup! Got screwed up by some bad old notes, and by posting late at night... Thanks!!!

Posting so little have its consequences.

Gio
 

The rabbit

Dagobah Resident
Happy New year to all. Thanks for posting excerpts from the book.it is now on the to get list.

Wow its been quite a while since being able to find the time to read , and to come back to this. Inference and a networking is indeed the only hope we have.
 

PopHistorian

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I'm reading the book now and it's really quite absorbing and easy to read. I thought it might be the opposite, so no one should fear.

I found it interesting to remember that when I was taking philosophy in college, one class touched upon the subject of "unconscious knowledge." The instructor made an example by asking a question to which everyone probably knew the answer but could not bring it to mind (something like the name of an animal that starts with a particular letter, or something like that). No one could think of the answer, but when it was given, everyone said, "Oh! Of course!" This, said the instructor, was unconscious knowledge. Now I see that his conception is quite outdated. In Strangers to Ourselves, author Wilson does *not* consider this kind of knowledge to be unconscious -- rather it is more like remotely conscious. His opening descriptions of really unconscious knowledge show that it is something really, entirely "out of view," that is, until he gets you thinking about some of it. Very interesting, indeed.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Very important to check out the "Thinking, Fast and Slow" thread, too: https://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,26334.0.html

I would say that Kahneman's book goes to the top of the list also. I think we have to revamp our "Big Five" psych books into the "Big Ten" or so.

Kahneman's got some handy little examples, tests, exercises that demonstrate to you, the reader, exactly what he means. It also adds a lot of clarification to ideas/observations that Wilson discusses. Both books are about the same thing, essentially, and they complement each other very well. Also, Kahneman's is much more recent and up-to-date.
 

Mrs.Tigersoap

The Living Force
I'm in the middle of You are not so smart and I'm currently translating some extracts of Stranger to Ourselves into French. It is both fascinating and horrifying reading imo. If nothing else, you realize just how 'asleep' everyone is! We are not just asleep, we are asleep, stupid AND blind!! Oh my!

It is also very timely because I realized recently that I had fallen for the Dunning-Kruger effect: thinking you're so smart in your little pond of a world but you are in fact pretty much nothing when compared to others in the world. My parents, family, coworkers, etc. have always been complimenting me about things I know and this has been going on for pretty much all my life so it took a while for me to understand that they were all wrong!! :lol: I know nothing and cannot do anything.

It's always so fascinating to read psychology's version of the Work and of what Gurdjieff was saying. Understanding (well, trying to) these concepts from different angles really helps. It's like having a 3D version of a map instead of a piece of paper with itinerary instructions on it.
 

The rabbit

Dagobah Resident
Mrs.Tigersoap said:
I know nothing and cannot do anything.
This thought and feeling has been amplified in myself of late.I know I .like many others here have said as much in the past , but of late no matter where i look . inner or outer i sadly realize more than ever that " I know nothing and cannot do anything."

I ordered both books this evening along with Redirect. It will be so good i think to get back to some reading .
 

mkrnhr

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Mrs.Tigersoap said:
I know nothing and cannot do anything.
I'm still reading the book, but i don't think we cannot do nothing. The conscious and the unconscious are uncorrelated and the unconscious is not reachable form the conscious. However, what the author seems to suggest is that we can know better about the unconscious through the others, through networking.

That's maybe why Gurdjieff says that a man can do nothing alone. (to be verified)
 

The rabbit

Dagobah Resident
mkrnhr said:
Mrs.Tigersoap said:
I know nothing and cannot do anything.
I'm still reading the book, but i don't think we cannot do nothing. The conscious and the unconscious are uncorrelated and the unconscious is not reachable form the conscious. However, what the author seems to suggest is that we can know better about the unconscious through the others, through networking.

That's maybe why Gurdjieff says that a man can do nothing alone. (to be verified)
Certainly hope so. It is my hope that truth/knowledge is the kind of food necessary to make some kind of headway. I sense that it is. No..I know that it is / does. This journey is made tolerable due to the fact that this network exists. I will have better insight hopefully when the books arrive.
 

Psalehesost

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Laura said:
Very important to check out the "Thinking, Fast and Slow" thread, too: https://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,26334.0.html

I would say that Kahneman's book goes to the top of the list also. I think we have to revamp our "Big Five" psych books into the "Big Ten" or so.
I've noticed, in becoming more familiar with these concepts, that they build an inner framework to which many, many things can be connected and better understood.

For example, the knowledge previously gained from the old Big 5 psychology books is somewhat vague, fuzzy, dreamy, and consisting largely of poorly interconnected islets of thought - and it's been hard to apply and understand in the context of my own life. Now, in recollecting what I remember from those books, all of it has been related to the new concepts that are being learned - the way these are pictured and understood - and it's becoming more concrete as a result, integrated into a whole.

And the same thing goes for various ideas from Gurdjieff and related sources - though these are often more clear and integrated in themselves, forming more of a system than do the various psychological ideas previously read. Essentially, one interconnected group of ideas - "Gurdjieffian" ideas - and another - from your own writings - are joining together with a third, newly formed - becoming a unified understanding that was missing before. One with which many more things - both new as well as older, the latter more disconnected and spread out in the mind - can now integrate and become part.

The old "Big 5" will be well-worth a re-read, I think, once I've gone through this new material. It can be seen at this point that it would all now come to be understood in an entirely new way.
 

Approaching Infinity

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Laura said:
I would say that Kahneman's book goes to the top of the list also. I think we have to revamp our "Big Five" psych books into the "Big Ten" or so.
Here are some suggestions: http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,4718.msg314120.html#msg314120
 

Buddy

The Living Force
Biomiast said:
I know Gurdjieff talked about these things, but I thought he was talking half metaphorically, yes I can not control myself, but if I think about my actions consciously, I can discern the difference between conscious and unconscious thought. The experiments show otherwise, all the time, we are unaware how our unconscious mind interprets our environment and tells us what to do. Reminds me of anart saying we can not think the way we think and we need a network to break free.

I have come to agree and, believe it or not, that observation is entirely consistent with context-related, daily life understandings of quantum theory. And before anyone goes "~sigh~ not that crap again"..., really, it's not that difficult to understand. In fact, I was able to make links between quantum theory, Gurdjieff's teachings and the "adaptive unconscious" by refreshing my understanding of Robert Pirsig's "Zen and the art of Motorcycle Maintenance", which is neither about Zen nor motorcycle maintenance. :) (Note: I'm not recommending ZAMM as anything particularly important, just as an interesting supplement for those who may be so inclined).

For example, having read some more of the literature recently, I see that there is a fairly easy way to think about this in those terms.

Imagine the process of making a choice, or set of choices, on various political candidates. We could say that, as an event outcome, one may be very hard pressed to pinpoint where one's decision was "made". Essentially, one cannot assess or access a unique locus (place or location) for the choice. Why? Some quantum patterns larger than oneself (one's local environments) and some smaller than oneself (biological organs, their molecular, atomic, and subatomic constituent quantum patterns) all with their own local "Bergsonian durations" contributed to one's choice. But none of those 'durations' ceased, or collapsed, as a result of their contribution, nor did one's own quantum pattern collapse, nor did the quantum pattern of one's local environment "collapse".

In fact, looking for a discrete location for a quantum measurement (or a Pirsig "Quality Event") is a futile effort because many "Bergsonian durations", which represent aggregate measurement interrelationships, contributed to that "rolling, wave-like quantum-real" choice or choices, just like a network of people who all provide input on something under consideration, OSIT.

So, as for me, getting to know my deeper self is turning out to be a lot more involved that I thought it would be. In fact, as someone's siggy on here suggests: the more I know, the more I realize I don't know. And sometimes I wish I'd never even said a word.
 
Top Bottom