WORK TOPIC: I’ve been trying to clearly articulate the relationship between cycles in the neural economy, novelty-seeking within it, attention-seeking, self-‘busying’, responsibility, and mindfulness. In particular, the problem the simple folk have with self-busying vs attention.
Now, one of the reasons I’m so emphatic about teaching how the brain works(it’s simple) is to help us understand the spectrum of human social behaviors, and how they’re reflections of neural economics(neural quality). “We like the internal lights on just as much as the external.”
So because we like the internal lights on, providing us with a greater breadth of auto-associations, in turn, we’re provided with a greater breadth of opportunities, providing the ‘high’ of the sense of plenty. So this is why people seek to maximize stimulation w/in their limits.
And people seek to maximize stimulation within their limits of sensation perception cognition and opportunity identification. This is why some folks seek ‘base’ novelties, and some folks seek ‘sophisticated’ novelties. And it’s even why some seek regularities, preventing failure.
My broader point here is to help followers (and students) understand that by merely regulating the quality of neural transmission on one end, and the temporal priority (lateral vs axial) we discover all human behavior is regulated by genetic and developmental quality.
Once we’ve understood hemispheres (male-axial then, female-lateral now) and neural economy, we need only understand biochemical differences have the same effect, and neoteny, dimorphism, and genetic load vary them.
I want (as always) to produce an operational (physical, intuitionistic, classical) explanation of how the physical biology produces differences in behavior, and how that behavior manifests across the spectrum of classes, thereby creating a value neutral system of explanations.
That value neutrality does not mean we will find ourselves equal. It will mean we can address the strengths and weaknesses of individuals and groups by understanding their behavior as physical cause that requires more or less training, vs moralizing and psychologizing and trying to use social and legal pressure to modify behavior that merely needs TRAINING.
In other words, mindfulness was provided by the church, but in the absence of superstition we must find a new means of providing mindfulness by non-false means, with no negative externalities. Responsibility is the optimum, stoicism next (masculine version), some variation of buddhism (feminine version), and of course ritual and recitation for those that need anthropomorphization.
