I’ve been reworking my thoughts on the ten awarenesses (or abilities or intelligences, whatever you want to call them) that I so far posit, as part of the essay I’m writing on the taxonomy of poetry I’ve devel- oped. Some of them will play role in my taxonomy. Kinds of poetry, for instance, will be partially defined by what areas of the brain–what awarenesses, that is–they primarily activate. I haven’t added much to what I previously posted here at my blog, but I added a few guesses about the evolution of the awarenesses that I consider rather interesting.
The Ten Awarenesses
I’ll begin with the protoceptual awareness because it was almost certainly the first, or “proto” awareness to evolve. Hence, it was the ancestor of the other nine awarenesses, and the one all forms of life have in some form. As, I believe, most real theoretical psychologists would agree. Some but far from all would also agree with my belief in multiple awarenesses, although probably not with my specific choice of them. It has much in common with and was no doubt influenced by Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences. It is much more advanced and much less superficial than his, however.
The protoceptual awareness deals with reality in the raw: directly with what’s out there, in other words–visual, auditory, tactile, olfactory, gustatory stimuli. It also deals directly with what’s inside its possessor, muscular and hormonal states. Hence, I divide it into three sub-awarenesses, the Sensoriceptual, Viscraceptual and Musclaceptual Awarenesses. The other nine awarenesses are (2) the Behavraceptual Awareness, (3) the Evaluceptual Awareness, (4) the Cartoceptual Awareness, (5) the Anthroceptual Awareness, (6) the Sagaceptual Awareness, (7) the Objecticeptual Awareness, (8) the Reducticeptual Awareness, (9) the Scienceptual Awareness, and (10) the Compreceptual Awareness.
24 May 2011 note: I may return to “fundaceptual” from “protoceptual.” I dropped “fundaceptual” to free “funda” up for use in another coinage of mine, but can’t remember now what coinage it was. I’m also considering “execuceptual” in place of “behavraceptual.”
The Behavraceptual Awareness is concerned with causing behavior, and telling you of it. It is the only awareness that does anything but store memories, and cause remembering.
At this point, I need to make a metaphysical digression. I could skip it, because it is irrelevant, but I want to be thorough. When I speak of “you,” I actually mean what I call your “urwareness,” or fundamental conxciousness of the universe, which is somehow connected to “your” body.” It does nothing but observe what your brain tells is in “your” environment and what actions “your” brain has taken. Your urwareness, no doubt, will think it was the one causing said actions, it will have had nothing to do with them, however; it will merely have observed what the brain it is attached to chose to do and did.
I believe all this because I can conceive of no way mind could have any influence on matter, since it is itself immaterial, or by definition without material effect. The question as to how it connects in any manner to anything material is leave as an Eternal Unanswerable–a simpler unanswerable since it’s only about how an awareness can be aware of matter, not about that and how it can tell matter what to do, which matter can easily do by following the law of cause and effect without any input.
But “I” am sure “you,” like my urwareness, will feel more comfortable believing that “you” initiate “your” behavior. No problem: I can, and will hereafter, drop the italics (which I’ve been dispensing with till now, anyway), and advance from the position that behavraceptual awareness is concerned with carrying out your orders and describing to you what you have made it do in each instance.
The Evaluceptual Awareness has, like the protoceptual awareness, been around forever, I believe, although–unlike the protoceptual awareness–it need not have been. It measures the ratio of pain to pleasure one experiences during an “instacon” (or instant of consciousness) and causes one to feel one or the other, or neither, depending on the value of that ratio. In other words, it is in charge of our emotional state.
The Cartoceptual Awareness tells one where one is in space and time. I imagine this was another early awareness, but not as early as the three preceding ones.
The Sagaceptual Awareness is one’s awareness of oneself as the protagonist of some narrative in which one has a goal one tries to achieve. It evolved to help motivate an organism to become aware of consequential goals such as escaping a predator or defeating and devouring prey and persist in the achievement of it, something which, again, would probably have developed early in our rise to humanhood.
The Objecticeptual Awareness is sensitive to inanimate objects. My guess is that it began a few eons after the protoceptual awareness did, in order to separate neutral entities in the environment for entities which might be predator or prey.
Sensitivity to the latter entities, as distinct from objects was the basis of what become the Anthroceptual Awareness, which has to do with our experience of ourselves as individuals and as social beings (so is divided into two sub-awareness, the egoceptual awareness and the socioceptual awareness). The “society” it is sensitive to includes many other life-forms, some of which no doubt cohabit the society of living beings, and the company of objects that the objecticaptual awareness is concerned with.
The Reducticeptual Awareness is basically our conceptual intelligence. It reduces protoceptual data to abstract symbols like words and numbers and deals with them (and has many sub-awarenesses). It would seem to have come late, biologically. On the other hand, there were probably primitive forms of it early on, such as a sense of the difference between one and many.
The Scienceptual Awareness deals with cause and effect, and may be the latest of our awarenesses to have evolved.
Finally, there is the Compreceptual Awareness,which is our awareness of our entire personal reality. I’m still vague about it, but tend to believe it did not precede the protoceptual awareness but later formed when some ancient life-form’s number of separate awarenesses required some general intelligence to co:ordinate their doings.
http://tinyurl.com/37me2ky
Here’s what the verosopath linked to in the comment above:
> > > > >/2010/10/12/entry-252/
> > > > > I have no interest in discussing this poem.
> > > > >http://groups.google.co.uk/group/ardenmanagers/msg/a39eb1eb4aa72274
> > > > > MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> > > >/2010/10/17/entry-257/
> > > > Entry 256 — For the Diary I’m No Longer Keeping
> > > > Entry 257 — Me and My Day-Dreaming.
> > > > Well, Bob, you’re consistent, at least…..
> > > > Tell us a little bit about yourself, then…..
> > > > “I managed to write the following today. It’s the beginning of the
> > > > book I plan that has commercial possibilities, I’m pretty sure, but
> > > > which I don’t want to say anything about, mainly so as not to
> > > > sidetrack myself into discussing it, rather than writing it, but also
> > > > because it’s based on a simple idea that almost anyone could run with,
> > > > although not half as well as I.”
> > > > Clearly not, Bob, you’re obvioiusly the greatest writer the world has
> > > > ever known.
> > > > “But nevertheless or therefore much more likely to make money from
> > > > it.”
> > > > …than you are? Surely not, o fount of all knowledge.
> > > > “Anyway, here’s my beginning”
> > > > Goody.:
> > > > “I don’t know when day-dreaming became important for me. The
> > > > first ones I can recall occurred when we were living in the Hyde
> > > > House in Harbor View, South Norwalk, Connecticut, so I’d’ve been
> > > > around seven. I’d gotten a gift subscription to Walt Disney Comics
> > > > two or three years before when we were still living at Wilson Point.”
> > > > So you’re asserting that this happened /before/ Wilson Point.
> > > > Perhaps you should have written: “I’d gotten a gift subscription to
> > > > Walt Disney Comics, two or three years before, when we were still
> > > > living at Wilson Point.”.
> > > > Still, you’re obviously correct, o greatest writer the world has ever
> > > > known. Punctuation is accorded altogether too much importance.
> > > > Onward…..
> > > > “Featuring Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse–and the wonder of their
> > > > arrival in the mail!”
> > > > So…the comics *featured* the wonder of their arriving in the mail,
> > > > eh? Was that a long-running storyline, or just a one-off?
> > > > “Comic books were as important to me until my
> > > > mid-teens as day-dreaming, perhaps even more because they formed
> > > > the earliest basis for what I dreamed of, as far as I can recall.”
> > > > Clumsy to the point of unintelligibility. Try this:
> > > > “Until my mid-teens, comic books were at least as important to me as
> > > > my day-dreaming was–indeed, perhaps even more important because–I
> > > > can recall no earlier conscious basis for the stuff of which my dreams
> > > > were made.”.
> > > > You’re the world’s leading expert, however….
> > > > “I suspect my very first day dreams were formless, in need of some
> > > > narrative structure, the kind supplied so brilliantly by Walt Disney
> > > > Comics and the later comics I devoured about Superman, Batman
> > > > and Robin, the Black Hawks and many others,”
> > > > So, you’re asserting that when you were about (presumably you mean
> > > > “around”) Superman, Batman and Robin, the Black Hawks and many others,
> > > > you devoured later comics. Did you add salt?
> > > > Still, you know best, o greatest writer the world has ever known.
> > > > This drivel continues on and on, but really it’s too much like hard
> > > > work.
> > > > You draw far too much attention to yourself, Mr. Grumderhill……
> > >/2010/10/22/entry-261/
> > > Magnipetry:
> > > “The sneer, “he calls himself a poet,” for someone who writes bad
> > > poetry, “could be corrected to “he thinks he write magnipetry.”
> > > Indeed, I hereby recall “magnipoet.”.”
> > > Surely this correction is wrong, Bob. It should read: “he think he
> > > write magnipetry”. Making mistakes like that, you just look silly.
> > More extraordinary gibberish from POETICKS. I refer not to the
> > grammatical mauling to which the language is here subjected (with
> > respect to this blog, that’s a given), but rather to the
> > etymologically-challenged epistemological catastrophe:
> >/2010/10/25/entry-264/
> Once again, Grumman ignores the facts:
> “Their contempt is never accompanied by any argument about why a given
> coinage should be junked,”
> /2010/10/26/entry-265/
> Well, Bob…you’re not often right, but you’re /wrong again/….
> Repeatedly, I have argued that unless you can justify your ridiculous
> inventions with detailed etymologies, they are essentially worthless–
> they’ll never be widely adopted.
> Give us etymologies, or stop creating these otherwise meaningless and
> idiotic lexicographical tangents.
> Put up, or shut up.
Latest:
/2010/10/29/entry-268/
“Entry 268 — More Thoughts on Linguistics, Sputterfully
Gosh, kids, I’m finding out that language-Processing is pretty durned
complicated. One thing that makes it so is its having to do with
responding in kind to its input, something that doesn’t happen
elsewhere in the brain, that I can think of right now, so now strikes
me as particularly interesting. I had to take a break from thinking
about it to clear my synapses. I think they’re clear now, but I still
feel over-matched by my opponent. I’m not conceding the game, though.
First, another coinage: Ultilinguiceptuality. That’s where all the
“word-flows” occurring in the Ultilinguiceptual Awareness, or final
language-processing area in the brain, end up. I propose, very
tentatively, that four word-flows can arise in the cerebrum, the heard
word-flow, the read word-flow, the spoken word-flow and the
mathematical word-flow.
Some of what I’m now saying may contradict previous statements of
mine. But this is definitely a sketch-in-progress.”
That being so…why the fuck do you bring it to the attention of us,
the public?
THE PUBLIC HAS THE OPTION OF NOT READING IT.
Interestingly, you had no comeback to my pointing out, in the post to
which the link below is directed, that there is ZERO EVIDENCE in
support of your assertion, about yourself, that:
“The actual truth of the matter is that I believe I MAY be the most
important theoretical psychologist ever.”
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/m...
It was good to see you concede that point. One suspects that it may be
possible that all of this research which you’re conducting is
COMPLETELY WORTHLESS, like nearly everything you do in public view.
Here’s a few questions for you, Bob:
How many of those who /genuinely/ are regarded as leading theoretical
psychologists work in the way that you do? How do you rate their work?
How does your work compare with theirs? Have you ever had a paper
published in an appropriate academic or peer-reviewed journal? Have
you ever presented a paper at a conference, or prestigious
institution? Is there /anything/ on your resumé that mitigates your
looking increasingly like a self-obsessed and deluded idiot?
Are your synapses clear?
******
Note the absence of a single rational critique of what I say in Entry 268, although–as I comment in my entry–the entry is extremely confused–a sketch-in-progress, written and posted for my own sake, as a few of my posts are, with apologies, explicit or implicit always to my poor few readers. The blog is my workshop. I keep it open because some people may find what I do in it, as culturateur or crank, of interest.
I’ve been continuing to read what the verosopath says about me because of its entertainment value and because I consider him an interesting specimen of rigidnikry. But I’m beginning to understand that even I, thick-skinned as I am–can not take continual insane, abusive denigration without feeling, uh, a little unhappy about it. So I guess I’ll stop reading his crap. I won’t block his comments here, though. I’m too much of an advocate of freedom of expression for that. Which reminds me, I think one reason for his insane enmity goes back a long way to my opposing a call of his for censorship at HLAS. I went on after the debate on that got out of hand to label him the fascist that he is (here even trying to run my blog). So, more evidence that, as a rigidnik, he can’t stand anti-authoritarians like me.
–Bob
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/msg/a2c98454e2fede47