Moods and states seem all too easy to explain on the basis of brain chemistry - you feel this way because of low or high dopamine, for example, but these explanations evade the issue even if they can prescribe effective actions. Is it possible to give a purely internal account of how these local but pervasive conditions operate? That is, an account good enough to actually bring about a desirable change in mood or state. You might try to talk someone you know out of their depression or anxiety, because you see no objective reason for these feelings, because you think you can provide an alternative point of view in which your friend appears in a better light than that with which they view themselves. You think, if they trusted you they might take on the perspective you are offering, just as in a discussion about a more disinterested subject perspectives can be shared and modified. This rarely works. You can't persuade anyone, you can't even persuade yourself, even if you rehearse earnestly some event in your own history where you seem once to have made such a change. All such attempts dissolve into the relationship which then reinforces the state. Without understanding what states are, they at least seem to be powerful attractors which hold their integrity in spite of a plethora of new contents in the stream of experience. Moods and states don't fit easily into the intentional paradigm of noesis, noema and horizon. They seem to be rooted in the ways you have learned to internally hold your body, staying upright, toilet training, refraining from vomiting, crying, yelling, drooling, leering etc., self-respect, decorum - they draw on the non-negotiability of these basic foundations. To shift a mood often seems to require the intervention of a moment when you are released from the body, in sleep, or sex or extreme effort - opportunities to reconfigure the way in which you inhabit the body, in certain energetic figures difficult to name. Moods often linger on past the time when their somatic underpinnings have changed, and then some chance event, something heard or seen with unexpected clarity, suddenly crystallises a massive change in subjectivity.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2017
(348)
-
▼
July
(31)
- These enquiries are just expanded figures or...
- Emotions can be detached from the will, from...
- It is not so much that consciousness has dif...
- Meaning is when one structure represents ano...
- It's not about an "I" thought, as if it were...
- One version of who I am (what this is) is co...
- To say that consciousness does not exist i...
- Somehow, once things start to become a littl...
- You are scattered in time, there are parts o...
- The third-person world is essentially the wo...
- Purposive frames compete for priority of con...
- The "I" is the protagonist of purposeful act...
- There is something comical yet also quite sa...
- The notions of truth and of freedom may not ...
- The first-, second- and third-person perspe...
- Locating the essence of consciousness in the...
- No narration or representation can ever capt...
- It is strange that inner identity poses a pr...
- A past event retained in long-term memory ne...
- Say that an atom of experience contains, or ...
- Moods and states seem all too easy to expl...
- The consciousness in dreamless sleep is not ...
- It is exactly the same consciousness in...
- As to the question of whether an AI can have...
- To seek a revelation of your core self by fo...
- Primary narcissism is another name for that ...
- Desire is far more mysterious than first app...
- You should be able to say "I am", but not "I...
- The missing word was incarnation, this is no...
- If you regard identification as the pivot by...
-
▼
July
(31)
Monday, 10 July 2017
Moods and states seem all too easy to explain on the basis of brain chemistry - you feel this way because of low or high dopamine, for example, but these explanations evade the issue even if they can prescribe effective actions. Is it possible to give a purely internal account of how these local but pervasive conditions operate? That is, an account good enough to actually bring about a desirable change in mood or state. You might try to talk someone you know out of their depression or anxiety, because you see no objective reason for these feelings, because you think you can provide an alternative point of view in which your friend appears in a better light than that with which they view themselves. You think, if they trusted you they might take on the perspective you are offering, just as in a discussion about a more disinterested subject perspectives can be shared and modified. This rarely works. You can't persuade anyone, you can't even persuade yourself, even if you rehearse earnestly some event in your own history where you seem once to have made such a change. All such attempts dissolve into the relationship which then reinforces the state. Without understanding what states are, they at least seem to be powerful attractors which hold their integrity in spite of a plethora of new contents in the stream of experience. Moods and states don't fit easily into the intentional paradigm of noesis, noema and horizon. They seem to be rooted in the ways you have learned to internally hold your body, staying upright, toilet training, refraining from vomiting, crying, yelling, drooling, leering etc., self-respect, decorum - they draw on the non-negotiability of these basic foundations. To shift a mood often seems to require the intervention of a moment when you are released from the body, in sleep, or sex or extreme effort - opportunities to reconfigure the way in which you inhabit the body, in certain energetic figures difficult to name. Moods often linger on past the time when their somatic underpinnings have changed, and then some chance event, something heard or seen with unexpected clarity, suddenly crystallises a massive change in subjectivity.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.