Sequencing, Comparison, and Assignment:
The Organization of Objects and Functions of the Subconscious Mind
(This article is being reviewed for publication in Cognition Journal)
The subconscious mind is always aimed at producing a positive feeling. The subconscious mind accomplishes this by organizing objects using Sequencing, Comparison, and Assignment. Sequencing Comparison and Assignment identifies the complete functions of the subconscious mind as a product of the subconscious mind existing within a reality that consists of objects in motion measured by time and space. All objects exist within sequences as causes or effects depending on context. All objects have assignments of value based on the feelings the object or motion produces. All objects in motion have assignments of true or false. All objects in motion have assignments of morally right and wrong. All thoughts are a product of solving for these assignments.
I begin with the itemization of the basic functions of the subconscious mind. Next I define what an object is intended to represent in the context of this article and the potential assignments. Object layers are identified where subconsciously we perceive many objects not how we typically describe them in their characteristics but as layers of objects. I define what value means in the context of SCA (positive or negative description of feelings) and the three forms of value that determine prioritization in immediate settings, which is anchoring value, stored value, and immediate value. Morality is introduced as an objective innate function and explanation is provided as to how morality becomes subjective. Morality’s existence is established in the feeling imposed in the perception of imposition and the feelings imposed at the point where one intends to commit an imposing act. The positive feeling the subconscious produces through morality is the avoidance of the negative feeling that results as a consequence of an individual violating their. True and false assignments are explained through consistency and contradiction of known sequences.
I provide a brief summary on the organization of objects by the subconscious mind which is followed by the decision making process. CVIARP is the acronym used to describe the sequential points of action that all consciously created results are observed through.
Image promoting behavior is explained through SCA using the example of Kobe Bryant’s death in brevity. This is followed by an explanation of thoughts, why we think, including reflections and the creation of scenarios. The next heading chronicles thoughts shortly after they occurred and identifies a mechanism for recall. The last portion identifies components of human intelligence through SCA and major impediments to human intelligence present among the species at this point.
What I’ve included here represents a very small portion of the material that exists on SCA. Other material consists of the analysis of events, concepts, and criticisms that seemed better suited for publication at a later date to not add additional controversy to the basic concepts of SCA.
Base Functions of the Mind
1: The universe consists of objects in motion measured by space and time.
2: All motion is initiated by the interaction of objects with other objects and is the product of previous motion. Cause and effect.
3: The mind perceives the universe as objects in motion and with the potential for motion. The subconscious mind assigns distinctions of cause and effect to objects based on the motion the objects have produced or could potentially produce.
4: The subconscious mind assigns value according to the feelings an object or motion has produced previously or is expected to produce based on similarity between the object and other objects for which value is known.
4: Feelings are motion because they are the effect of the motion of objects or objects themselves.
5: Thoughts are motion because they are the effect of objects in motion, and the cause of motion including the production of feelings and assignments to objects and sequences.
6: The subconscious mind is always set to an objective to produce a positive feeling.
7: The subconscious mind assigns distinction of true and false to motion.
8: The subconscious mind assigns distinctions of right or wrong to motion.
9: Sequencing,Comparison, and Assignment expresses the totality of functions of the subconscious mind based on reality consisting of objects, layers of objects, in motion, objects and motion producing feelings in human beings, the innate human ability to recognize contradiction in sequence to assign true and false distinctions, and the innate human perception of morality which objectively determines freedom of movement.
Object describes any thing that is distinguishable from all other things. All material, all action, thoughts, and feelings are objects.
All objects are assigned designations of cause or effect depending on context.
All objects are assigned value based on the feelings they are believed to produce.
All objects are assigned designations of morality distinctions of right or wrong.
All objects assigned designations of true or false.
All thoughts, feelings and behavior are a product of the mind’s assignments of cause or effect, true or false, value, and morality.
Most objects consist of layers of other objects. Consciously we don’t acknowledge the layers of objects as separate objects for which there are actually separate values and priorities. Instead we see the layers of objects as the characteristics of the object. We consider a layer or characteristic that is a determining factor of how we feel about the object as a whole. This is expressed in thoughts such as either liking something or not liking something about the object.
An example I’ve used before is a blue papermate ink pen. It is an object perceived by the mind typically thought about as a cause that produces the effect of applying ink to a surface.
It draws value from utility when one has an objective to write something.
The diameter of ink dispersed as pressure is applied is 1 millimeter and is printed on the pen. This is an object, where 1 millimeter to a person who is familiar with the distinction between different diameters of ink perceive the effect of this object as representing some imagined width of ink on the paper. For most this object is irrelevant to the value we have of the pen, but for those who have a conception of the width of ink, this object will add or take away value from the pen depending on the objective. This is to say for some objectives 1mm will be the desired width and in others it will not be which will add or take away from the pens value depending on the context.
The pen has a cap and a clip. The clip is an object that produces the effect of securing the pen to something. Whether a person has an objective to secure the pen to something or not will determine whether the clip adds value to the pen. The value of this clip as an object that adds value to the pen will also be determined by comparing the clip to other clips, where if the clip secures the pen better than other pen clips known to the individual it will add value, and if other clips perform better it will decrease the value.
There are two hearts engraved on the cap. The shape of a heart is an object. A person’s value of this object may add or take value away from the pen.
The company, Papermate, that produces the pen is also an object. Depending on a person’s familiarity with the company this object may add to or take value away from the pen.
Finally, the pen is blue. The color blue is an object. Depending on how the color blue causes someone to feel or depending on the utility of the color to the objective, this object may add to or decrease the value of this pen.
Whether you like the pen depends on the importance of and value of the layers of objects the pen consists of as determined by your objectives that involve the pen.
Many objects are objects of themselves, such as blue. Blue is a solid object that does not consist of other objects. The color has value to you based on how it makes you feel which varies according to application and objective.
Value describes the anticipated feelings an object will produce. In the explanation of object layers I explained the pen derives value in the utility of writing, but the actual value is the feeling produced by accomplishing the objective. The same as the clip has value in the feeling it produces in fastening the pen, where if the clip fails to secure the pen, the feelings experienced by the failure obstructing some other objective will become associated with the clip and the pen itself. For example, if the clip fails to secure the pen and it is lost, the feeling of that occurs when you discover it is missing will become the value of the pen clip.
Value represents the feelings associated with objects, and all objects produce subtle sensations depending on how they relate to an objective at any given moment. Value has three forms: anchoring, stored, and immediate.
Anchoring values are long term objectives, where the obtaining of any object of immediate value is compared to the value of those long term objectives. For example, most people have anchoring values in family, which probably consists of multiple objectives, usually the product of the sensations you experience in giving your family the things they want and sensations from ideas associated with accomplishing those objectives. For example, their idea of what a man is worth is determined by a man’s ability to fulfil those responsibilities, there are positive sensations associated with this idea, which adds value to those anchoring objectives. There is also the perception that others value this idea as well which creates additional positive feelings in image promotion. The idea that you are embodying a common value creates the perception that others have a higher value of you, which increases self worth and produces positive sensations.
Anchoring objects have deep and long term value, including not only people but other long term goals like a career, or a car, house, or other high value objects. Any immediate value object that potentially obstructs the obtaining of any anchoring valued object enters into a comparison of value depending on the probability of the obstructing consequence. For example, if one has anchoring values consisting of family oriented objectives and is considering a criminal act, they may picture their family and have images of their family being without them, being unable to experience the sensations they presently experience through their service to them, of being in jail, and of their family’s needs going unmet.
What we think determines what we feel, as a scenario imagined consists of the feelings we anticipate we’d feel if we were experiencing that scenario. Followed by or preceding the thoughts of family objectives being obstructed the person may have thoughts related to successfully completing the crime and experience the sensations of that scenario. The value comparison is consciously perceived as thoughts related to the immediate objective and value associated with the feelings produced by those thoughts, and thoughts related to anchoring objectives and the feelings associated with those thoughts. Consequence comparison has two components, the first is expressed as the severity of the consequence as it relates to the procurement of all anchoring objectives, and the second is the probability of the consequence. The conscious acknowledgement of this subconscious process are thoughts related to how one will perpetrate the crime, and the less uncertainty one experiences in these thoughts the less probable the consequence seems. A low probability of the negative outcome bypasses the comparison of value between anchoring and immediate values.
Of course consequence is only one component and two parts of the decision making process. The decision making process consists of immediate value versus immediate value, energy required versus immediate value, immediate value versus anchoring value if an obstructing consequence is probable, and immediate value versus value of morality which is value derived from ideas associated with self worth.
Immediate value is the value an object has based on an immediate objective whereas stored value is the value an object has to foreseeable objectives. For example, if you have a thought and you want to write it down this objective creates immediate value in the pen to facilitate the accomplishment of that objective. If the pen is in your den and you are in the kitchen, as you walk to the den to retrieve the pen you will pass by many objects that have no value to you at that moment but have stored value to you in future objectives.
Stored value is evident by your response if for example you pass by your television and notice it is damaged. You will experience sensations resulting from future objectives involving the television being obstructed by the damage to the television which may produce a new immediate objective in addressing the damage to the television. Thoughts pertaining to repair or replacement depending on the value of that objective compared to the value of the present objective that noticing the damage interfered with.
All objects have a stored value assignment until circumstances prompt an objective that gives immediate value to an object.
Morality is a value determination assigned to objects of right or wrong. Morality objectively is innate, but since human beings have adopted an authority based mode of operation this causes the application of morality assignments to be the imposition of subjective values.
1st, morality is innate in the sense that an act that does not affect the individual will produce feelings and an assignment of wrong to an act that a person has not been told is wrong. Anytime a person is prevented from doing something they want to do that doesn’t prevent others from doing what they want to do there is the potential to create a moral response and assignment. If an individual perceives that an act disadvantages someone this may be perceived morally as circumstantial imposition. Unless of course the one committing the imposing act is liked by the individual, then the imposition may be ignored or justified to protect the value of the liked person.
In all settings all people want to do what they want to do. This is never untrue. Therefore, any act that does not prevent anyone else from doing what they want to do is the right action, since so long as what people do does not prevent others from doing what they want to do all people can do as they please.
The second aspect of doing what you want to do consists of your circumstances, which is actually the first component. What you can do is determined by the objects that are accessible to you based on your immediate circumstances. Individual circumstances are a product of systems and systems are a product of collective consent and participation. Those who benefit circumstantially from systems that produce circumstantial trapping for others are imposing through their consent of and participation in systems that produce these disadvantages.
This isn’t to say that all systems will always produce collective imposition, because disadvantages can exist without being circumstantially imposing or trapping. Trapping circumstances express a condition where an individual’s opportunities to earn money and have time are inadequate for the individual to do what they want to do. To do requires the time and the means to do. When an individual’s opportunities to earn money leave little left over after expenses are paid and require a great majority of that individual’s time this represents trapping circumstances. The individual is trapped in those circumstances when there are no options to achieve an adequate balance of time and money.
Morality objectively is the perception of imposition. Physical and circumstantial, where physical imposition is imposing physical harm, spatial restrictions, or imposition on property which represents means, and circumstantial imposition is collective consent and participation in systems that produce trapping circumstances.
The other two components of applying morality are property and efficiency. People have dominion over their property, meaning people are right to impose arbitrarily on those who are interacting with or in their property. To avoid this imposition, others can choose not to interact in or with that person’s property.
Another component of application that maintains the consistency of objective morality is efficiency. For example, in a classroom setting students gather at school for the purpose of learning. Learning is the objective. Assigned seating outside of this common objective would be considered imposition because it prevents people from sitting in the seat they want to sit in, and the act of sitting where they choose does not prevent anyone else from doing what they want to do. Of course if students choosing their seat causes them to distract others from learning, then these students are imposing on others because the common purpose for being in school is learning, and such distractions impose on everyone’s time because it takes longer for people to learn.
In settings like school and work or anywhere there is a common objective, rules that impose without preventing imposition are morally sound because they prevent imposition on time in efficiency of accomplishing an objective. Of course work is typically a poor example in situations where the wage is hourly since the purposes of objectives diverge. The owner’s purpose is to maximize production whereas the wage earners purpose is to maximize the time they’re paid for. For example, in construction the owner of the company may impose rules on the workers to maximize efficiency in building a house. The workers may not comply because they’re paid more the longer it takes to build the house if they’re hourly workers. To remedy this conflict the owner could pay his workers according to what they produce, where they are paid the same amount according to what they produce. In this, if each crew is paid a set amount to complete a phase of the house they are incentivized to work efficiently because they gain time without losing money. The owner earns more money because the increased efficiency allows him to build more houses. The workers earn either more money or more time because they complete the projects quicker, meaning they have additional time and the same amount of money they’d earn for stretching it, or they earn more because they’re completing more projects and are paid by the project.
Objective morality is not a respecter of perception. Words and acts that are unimposing physically and circumstantially as previously described are right acts. Words and acts as objects will cause others to feel certain ways, sometimes it will cause them to feel bad. The feeling they experience cannot be thought of as imposition because it is subjective. Two people can witness the same act or hear the same words and one will feel bad and another will not. The feeling is rooted in the individual’s perception of the object not in the object itself. An act that is objectively unimposing, meaning it does not cause physical harm, restrict an individual’s motion, impose on property, or impact circumstances in respect to opportunities for time and money is not wrong because it causes someone to feel bad. The individual who feels bad as a result of an unimposing act must either understand why the object feels bad and change their perception of the object, or they can avoid the source of the act that causes them to feel bad. It is not incumbent upon any individual to modify their behavior when their actions are unimposing to accommodate subjective perceptions of the 7 billion plus people on this planet.
Words or acts that express threats are considered imposition since a threat that is perceived as credible will impose restrictions on the one being threatened. Of course imposing action against the one who is making the threat is justified to remove the imposition.
This is a popular problem caused largely by psychology attempting to identify objects that popularly produce negative feelings and eliminating those objects to eliminate sources of negative emotions to increase the satisfaction of the populous. Popular emotional responses are not human responses but the internalization of popular values. Popular values are handed down from previous generations, are a product of inherited environments, and typically develop in service to the interests of those who are advantaged by the present organization of civilization. Some of the implications of this will be discussed further along in the article, but I mention it here because it leads into what morality is among human beings.
Morality is an assignment of right or wrong to an object. Objectively, morality is an assignment of right or wrong to an object based on whether that object is perceived as imposing. Outside of objective morality the morality of human beings is largely the imposition of subjective value onto others. Human morality is primarily authority based and that authority is usually a deity they made up, popularity, or comes from some other valued object. Which would disqualify it as a moral value and move it into the consequence aspect of perception and decision making if it wasn’t for the value compromising self worth irrespective of external consequences.
Morality exists because it produces feelings when an immoral act is observed, or when one is considering an act that they believe is wrong. The negative feeling imposed at the point of intending to commit an immoral act is not the same as the feeling of fear associated with the uncertainty of a consequence that obstructs the procurement of higher (anchoring) valued objects. If the act is committed and the consequence is not experienced there is no negative feeling; whereas if an act is committed that has an immoral assignment a person will feel bad in experiencing a loss of self worth for having done something they believe is wrong. This is the distinction between consequence and morality.
Objective morality exists and is innate because the perception of imposition will produce moral feelings and thoughts without the individual ever thinking about the act being wrong. For example, you pull into a gas station and you’re told by someone you cannot use the pump you pulled up in front of. First you may ask why, and suppose the individual gives you an arbitrary answer, you can’t use the pump because they said you can’t use the pump. You will experience moral feelings as a result of that imposition, anger if you can resist the imposition and sadness if you cannot. To go one further, if you pull into a gas station and you witness this act happening to someone else although your interests are not personally affected you will also experience feelings associated with seeing that imposition. Few people have ever been told or have a moral conception of whether it is right or wrong to tell someone they cannot use a gas pump.
Objective morality is also evident in the evolution of subjective morality. Where acts once dictated by god or popularity to be wrong, such as learning, eating pork, or homosexuality to name a few eventually become morally acceptable because people see past the subjective authority and recognize that these acts are unimposing.
Imposition is morally justified when one imposes to prevent imposition or remove imposition as it is occurring.
There is an example I want to share in describing efficiency but chose not to place it there because the paragraph preceding where it was going to be placed transitioned nicely into the next point. I mention that detail of sequence because the example will be out of place here. I’ve understood and applied liberty as the basis of objective morality for years and up until yesterday there had never been a point of contradiction in the practical application of it. I don’t remember what prompted the thought but I thought about whether it was immoral to force people to wear clothes according to liberty as the basis for objective morality.
A person who is unclothed is not physically or circumstantially imposing on others therefore the act is morally sound and to prohibit the act is imposing on people without preventing imposition. Initially, this presented an issue for the practical application of objective morality because not wanting to see people naked is a subjective value, and the beauty of objective morality is it allows for the maximum expression of subjective values and diversity.
Today in writing the portion on efficiency I returned to this dilemma. The sensations associated with sex are hardwired into human beings. Sexual stimulation is among the highest values in all human beings with few exceptions. Some exceptions are people who have high values of objects that cause their value of sexual stimulation to decrease, who describe themselves as asexual, or their value of themselves increases through ideas of abstaining from sex that comparitively reduces or elimnates the value of sex in the choice of celebacy. Even with these exceptions, if people wore no clothes the hardwired value of sex would distract from all other purposes and impose on time in creating inefficiencies in all public business objectives. Prohibiting nakedness is morally valid in the preservation of efficiency, where the freedom to be in public unclothed imposes on the time of all other people in all of their purposes. Net liberty is on the side of people being clothed in public.
Other moral philosophy concepts like the responsibility to help are addressed in objective morality, where the responsibility to help as a moral question is determined by whether an individual contributed to the circumstances that another requires help for. For example, if a person is circumstantially trapped because of the systems that others benefit from there is a responsibility to help because they’ve contributed to the circumstances that produced the need for help through their participation, consent, and benefit from these systems.
Another example would be if a person sees someone who is stuck in quicksand. There is no responsibility to help because this person neither contributed to the existence of the quicksand nor did they influence the person’s decisions that led to them becoming entrapped in it. Most people will still help but not because it is morally incumbent. They help because they anticipate the feeling they will experience for having helped is greater than the energy required to help. This isn’t a conscious contemplation where the individual is aware that this comparison has taken place. Instead a person sees someone who is struggling in the quicksand and they run to provide aid setting a new immediate objective having been provided this opportunity through their circumstances of seeing a person who needs help. Thoughts pertain to the objective, reassuring the victim and how the objects in the setting produce motion to free the victim from the quicksand.
Altruism doesn’t exist in the traditional conception of it, which is to say there are no selfless acts. The feelings associated with the idea of sacrificing something to help someone exceeds the feelings that could be achieved through the substance sacrificed. For example, a person may give a homeless person $5. They do this because the feelings they experience through the act is greater than the feelings they could experience by spending the $5. Much of this has to do with ideas that produce the value of the act: considering how the person they gave the money to feels having received it, improvement on self worth by acting on a valued quality (compassion), believing they’ve improved their value to their deity which in turn impacts self worth as well as other ideas that produce positive feelings.
Subjectively, altruism can also be motivated by morality, where in either of the examples a person who believes they are responsible to help will experience a loss of self worth and a negative feeling by failing to help. Where the objective to help is motivated by a positive feeling in avoiding the negative feeling they may experience later for not helping.
Before the addition of the previous distracting paragraphs the conclusion of this portion is that all objects have an assignment of right or wrong morally. Consciously we do not acknowledge that objects are morally right because in the absence of controversy that an act is wrong or the perception that an act is morally wrong doesn’t require acknowledgement that they are right. We do as we please unless an act violates a subjective value that has been morally internalized, or unless we perceive an act as being imposing.
Morality determines the freedom of motion for conscious beings sharing a space. If all creatures liberty is only exercised to the point where it does not interfere with the liberty of others and systems afford individual’s relatively equal opportunities to have time and money then such a species is living in liberty. Anything less than this represents tyranny, where subjective values are imposed on others according to the ability to impose a consequence for disobedience.
True and False
All objects have assignments of causes and effects depending on context, where context represents the different sequences an object exists in. The pen for example. In the context of writing the pen is a cause that produces the effect of applying ink to a surface. In the context of composition depending on how small we want to go the pen is an effect of harvesting raw materials, forming the components, and assembling those components. An object has cause and effect assignments based on different sequences it appears in, and there is almost no limit to the amount of sequences an object can be considered in.
What truth is may be the subject of great controversy philosophically, but truth is the observation of motion. Observing a cause produce an effect is truth. Truth isn’t in static details but in the observation of motion. Considerations involving the application of true and false are based on consistency and contradiction of sequence. If there is a contradiction between what one knows about an object in sequence and new information that contradicts known function, both sequences are stored, with one having an assignment of true and the other having an assignment of false.
For example, if you arrive at work and a co-worker is telling a story about a freeway on ramp being closed but you used the on ramp to go to work this represents a contradiction in sequence. This will probably produce questions such as when was it closed down as your mind attempts to reconcile the contradiction. Without questioning you will have thoughts that serve no other purposes than establishing truth. If the individual is discovered to be lying this may have an impact on their value you to them which should depend on the individual’s purpose for lying, but absent these effects of applying a false assignment, the thoughts are produced for no other reason than reconciling the contradictory objects: (your observation and your coworkers observation). The same can be said of value, function, and morality, where all thoughts are a product of solving for these assignments.
Organization of Objects by the Subconscious Mind
The mind perceives objects, and objects often consist of layers of objects, organized through cause and effect sequencing, assigned value (good feeling bad feeling), assigned distinctions of true or false, and right or wrong morally. The subconscious mind is interacting with these objects in our environment always set to an objective that produces a positive feeling, where the removal of a negative feeling resulting from interaction of objects and the denial of objectives is an objective to produce a positive feeling. Our subconscious is always working to set objectives that lead to positive feelings and avoid negative feelings, assignments of cause and effect to objects produces an understanding of motion, and the emotion that is produced is assigned to that motion and represents its assignment of value in context, assigns distinctions of right or wrong according to acts that are imposing or subjectively according to how committing the act will cause them to feel, or how they feel seeing such an act being perpetrated, and distinctions of true and false in the preservation of consistency of sequences. All thoughts are a product of sequencing, comparison, and assignment to achieve positive sensations. Reality consists of objects real and imagined, motion, and the potential for motion; there are no other purposes for which a thought can take place.
The conscious mind beholds and acknowledges the objects and opportunities that the subconscious mind presents to it. These are your thoughts. The conscious mind acknowledges its immediate circumstances and chooses action often based on the feeling present in the moment. The mind is like a choose your own adventure book. The conscious mind is little more than the page written on by the subconscious mind, the acknowledger of what is written on the page in the moment, and the finger that decides which page to turn to. However, in deciding which pages to turn to, the conscious mind dictates how the subconscious mind organizes objects. As much as we think we are consciously deciding to think about something or do something, our thoughts are furnished by the subconscious organization of objects, driven by the ever present objective to achieve a positive feeling.
SCA defines the variables that produce the motion of conscious objects.
The Decision Making Process
The mind is always set to a valued objective in consideration of anchoring objectives. An objective is the intent to produce or the production of motion. The intent to produce motion when an objective consists of an action, and the production of motion when an objective is a thought.
There are four elements of the decision making process.
The first is the value of the object compared to the value of all other objects accessible by one’s immediate circumstances. Second is the value of the object compared to the value of anchoring objects the act may obstruct represented as consequence. Risk versus the reward, where risk is considered in the probability of the outcome and the severity of the consequence as it relates to objects of anchoring value. The short comparison is the value of the object versus the consequence. When an act involves the possibility of a negative consequence there are thought signatures associated with assessing the consequence. Thoughts in images and internal monologue to establish whether the negative outcome can be accepted or the likelihood that the negative outcome will occur.
The consequence element of decision making is very easy to illustrate. Every consequence consideration is figuratively standing next to a chasm. Probability is the breadth of the chasm, severity is the depth, and on the other side is the height of the immediate objective and beyond are the heights of anchoring objectives. If the breadth is short the severity is irrelevant because there is a low probability that the outcome will be experienced. The greater the breadth the more the depth of the chasm is considered in respect to anchoring objectives. While the outcome itself is viewed as the deterrent, the outcome is only meaningful in the distance it creates between anchoring objectives.
Third is the energy (negative value) required versus the anticipated feeling the object will produce.
Fourth is morality, where an act is understood as being right or wrong.
If the obtainment of an object is imposing there is a negative feeling that occurs during the intention phase of the act. Morality is a governor of the decision making process, where if the negative feeling is greater than the anticipated feeling of obtaining the object, the action will not proceed. Morality as a function of decision making is the value of the object versus the extent of the imposition. Where great value can produce justifications, or even in the absence of justification, great value can cause a person to subordinate their morality to value. Similarly small value objects can cause a person to compromise their morality if the imposition isn’t great because the moral restrictive feeling is not great.
Overtime, the subordination of morality to value will change the person’s morality. That is to say something that is considered as wrong will undergo a change of assignment to avoid the negative feelings from the loss of self worth from having committed a wrong act.
Decision Making Example
The decision making process is value versus consequence, energy, and morality. Where there are no consequences or violations of morality there are no thoughts or feelings related to it. For example, if a person is lying on the couch and they want a glass of orange juice, the decision to complete the act is the value of the orange juice versus the energy of procuring the orange juice. The thought signatures may be imagery of the juice and anticipating the experience with the juice based on past impressions from the juice. This may be followed by images of the process of getting the juice. Getting up, walking to the kitchen, opening the cupboard, retrieving a cup, opening the fridge, retrieving the juice, pouring the juice in the cup, returning the juice, closing the fridge, and then walking back to resume comfort increased by the presence of the juice. The thought isn’t likely to include all those points but some of those points may appear as images in the mind while a person considers the value versus the effort. In fact the only points a person is likely to consider is whichever points the individual perceives as the most energy intensive in the moment. The person may be thinking back and forth between getting up, and drinking the orange juice as a comparison between the value of the act versus the energ required.
There are no thoughts related to the consequence of getting the juice because there are no consequences of the act that obstruct the procurement of higher valued objects. Unless there isn’t much juice left and the individual is without the immediate means to purchase more juice. A thought of consequence would consist of the value of the juice now, versus the value of the juice at a later time. The thoughts would be sequences likely consisting of images of the present circumstances and future circumstances, and probably an internal monologue to consciously establish the value of consuming the juice now versus consuming the juice later. A person may think I’d rather have the juice with breakfast in the morning.
No morality is considered because the act is not imposing. Unless of course there is juice in the fridge that belongs to a roommate. Then morality will need to be overcome. The moral signature will be either a thought to contact the roommate to ask if it is okay to drink the juice, or more likely some justification like he or she won’t care, won’t notice, or the taker will replace the juice.
As I’m proof reading this having only recently woke up and feeling tired I poured half of my daughter’s monster energy drink into a cup. Internal monologue was I’ll replace it later and included images of the corner store I frequent and acknowledgement of a trip to the post office I intend to complete later in the day.
CVIARP is Circumstances, Value, Intents, Action, Results, and Purposes and represents the full sequence of a consciously created result’s causes and effects.
All results begin with circumstances, where circumstances represent an individual’s immediate environment, access to surrounding environments, and their ability to interact with objects in those environments according to means and ability. Every result we observe begins with circumstances because no person can initiate an action outside of the objects they have access to through their environment. Access to objects is limited by means, and action is limited by ability.
Next is value. The first point of the decision making process. Where value is prioritized according to efficiency after consequences to anchoring values are considered.
Once an individual has chosen an objective of value they intend an action, to produce a result, to fulfil a purpose or purposes. The intended action may be the intended result and purpose but are mentioned separately because they may all be different as well. For example, the valued objective may be to win a prize at a carnival game. The person’s intended action is to strike the pad, to produce the intended result of a puck traveling up the pole to ring the bell, to fulfill the intended purpose of winning the prize. While the intended action is often the result and the result is often the purpose and the purpose is always the valued objective, they can all be different which is the reason for distinguishing between intents.
Action is the motion initiated by the individual that produces an observable effect.
The result is the effect produced by the action.
Purposes describe the impact of the result to all affected parties.
Image Promoting Behavior
Image promoting behavior is the act of promoting a value believed to be valued by the public for the purpose of increasing one’s value to others. Image promotion as motivation can sometimes be deduced when the circumstances leave no other explanation for behavior. Usually you cannot know if behavior is motivated by image promotion definitively, but in consideration of the broader circumstances inconsistency often reveals that motivation.
Image promoting behavior is motivated by an individual increasing his or her value to others. Whether the individual accomplishes the objective or not, this does not affect the value inherent in the effort. Image promotion is inherently satisfying because the individual in his or her efforts believes they’ve increased their value to others, and the perception of having done so increases the individual’s self worth which carries with it positive feelings. Image promoting behavior also derives value from the material purposes served by having an image in the perception of others that is consistent with their (others) values. Lastly, image promoting behavior has value in its potential to create opportunities for social interaction which has inherent value and carries with it prospects of material opportunity.
Image promotion in others can be quite apparent through events. A somewhat recent example of mass image promoting behavior occurred after the death of Kobe Bryant. People all over the internet, television, and at gatherings were crying and expressing their sadness in his passing. While what I’m about to explain applies to a lot of celebrity deaths, Kobe’s death is a better example than most since the entertainment Kobe provided that was his source of value he was no longer performing. This relates to loss, where if a musician dies or an active athlete dies it could be argued that loss does occur because what they did that was uniquely entertaining ceases with death. Retired athletes are finished entertaining in any seriously relevant capacity.
The lives of people who were mourning Kobe are unaffected whether Kobe is alive or dead. He isn’t contributing anything to their lives. No matter the level of appreciation for him as a basketball player, or even as a person, they haven’t lost the ability to interact with that which they couldn’t interact with prior to his death. Kobe isn’t doing anything that is contributing to their lives. There is no loss to grieve because these people have not been separated from anything.
Is grief a natural response to death for some people? An individual imagines the grief of those the deceased is survived by and typically insert themselves in that scenario imagining it as if it were their family or them grieving the loss of a father, daughter, husband or sister. The feeling is fleeting. It doesn’t serve as motivation to gather outside the Staples Center and cry to grieve the loss of a person that does not represent any loss to these people’s lives.
If death itself served as the basis for ongoing grief people would be in a constant state of morning because death is occurring all the time and people are made aware of it. The difference is when someone who is unknown dies people don’t make a spectacle of it because their grief doesn’t have the benefit of being for a person who people know. If you’re expressing grief for a person who is popular the value of the person to others has image enhancing and social benefits. Morning itself becomes an activity that serves the purpose of social interaction.
People work themselves into grief. Initial thoughts typically relate to how they should respond, and considerations of how they are expected to respond and how that response will be received by others. They focus on the details of the event and consider it from the perspective of affected people. They play the event in their head but from their perspective, with their loved one’s instead of Kobe and his daughter. What we imagine causes us to experience the feelings we anticipate we’d feel if we were in the situation we are imagining. The grief may be real but it’s manufactured.
In asserting qualities of compassion that are valued by the collective there are other inherent benefits to the grief beyond image promotion. In causing yourself to feel sad, you feel good because you associate the act of expressing grief for someone’s loss with compassion, and it boosts your self worth, even if the grief was contrived, but you’re not conscious of it beyond perhaps a few thoughts in the beginning which are suppressed and forgotten. People feel good for having felt bad for others because it is evidence to themselves that they are a good person.
Another reason we can experience genuine grief is the manner in which a person died. We experience grief when there is some injustice, when a person dies as the result of another person’s actions unprovoked. The manner of death produces grief in recognizing that the person was imposed on. Even then, the feelings are fleeting, and Kobe’s death was an accident so there is no grief rooted in moral feelings.
There is a video showing athletes’ reaction to Kobe’s death, and some of the athletes’ grief may be more authentic having known him and having a relationship with him. In the video as mentioned it showed people outside of the Staples Center crying, but the comments were even more revealing. I have the screenshots to verify the comments, but the most popular comments began with imagine and insert details of scenarios of Kobe’s last moments, or people bragging that they cried about the incident. These are the comments with the most likes. If you cried and that was your reaction based on the experiences you’ve had with him, and knowing that you’ve been precluded from any additional interaction with that person because of death, you typically do not tell people. Commenting on a video that you cried serves no other purpose than to present grief as evidence of compassion to associate the quality with yourself before others. Which has the effect of causing you to feel good based on believing other people like you more because they believe you’re a compassionate person. There’s some confirmation in the amount of likes you receive on your comment. Comments that pertain to imagining scenarios can cause others to feel grief by imagining scenarios, since imagined scenes produce feelings similar to actually experiencing those scenes. It’s also evidence that their grief has been contrived by imagining scenarios.
Scenarios and Reflections
Positive thoughts such as day dreams produce positive feelings. Imagination is assembling details according to their known, presumed, or potential function which appears in the conscious mind as scenarios. Other positive thoughts consist of interest and curiosity where learning itself typically produces positive feelings which may be caused in part by resolving uncertainty. Uncertainty is the basis for fear but not all uncertainty is fear, although all fear is a product of uncertainty.
The subconscious mind is always set to an objective that produces positive feelings, but negative thoughts produce negative feelings so why are these thoughts produced? The thoughts themselves are an acknowledgement of a perceived threat to an objective. Scenarios are produced for two reasons, to reduce uncertainty and the negative feeling of fear which is a positive feeling through preparedness, and second, to eliminate fear through acceptance of all anticipated outcomes.
A situation imagined produces feelings comparable to what the individual expects to experience if they were actually experiencing the situation. Uncertainty can be reduced through preparedness. An individual imagines the setting and functions of motion, and what he can do based on the known elements and possibilities to avoid the negative outcome. This reduces uncertainty which reduces the fear which is the positive feeling that motivates the creation of the scenarios. The second aspect of negative scenarios is preparedness in how to proceed should the negative outcome occur. This may be evidence that the individual has accepted the outcome, or carrying function through the outcome may be a mechanism that allows the individual to accept the outcome which eliminates or reduces fear, and serves as the motivation for the act of thought.
Other negative reflections are motivated to prevent behavior that was embarrassing and that didn’t live up to personal standards or the image the individual seeks to promote. Negative reflections are efforts to improve performance to accomplish previously failed objectives, to resolve moral conflicts, to produce behavior that meets a personal standard of manner, and to resolve uncertainty.
It’s no secret that in the preservation of positive feelings the subconscious mind will repress memories that produce negative feelings that an individual is not able to accept. Repression is subconscious denial where an event poses a great threat to other valued objects. Acknowledgement of anything can create contradictions in understanding that take away the ability of objects (including people) to produce good feelings. Repression of memories occurs to preserve value. Repression also creates general uncertainty.
All fear is rooted in uncertainty, but uncertainty can exist without producing fear. When uncertainty relates to an outcome and the outcome is acceptable if it should occur, and there is no emotion, this is uncertainty without fear. Memories are repressed as I mentioned in the previous paragraph and I have a theory concerning the fundamental issue with repressed memories, but I do not confidently understand how the subconscious mind stores or circumvents these memories, and produces the negative effects of the memories being repressed. If these details are available to the subconscious mind there shouldn’t be subconscious uncertainty. These details cannot be processed with other details because it would produce thoughts consisting of details that if acknowledged, can create catastrophic damage to value. The understanding of one event can harm the basis for value across many different objects.
The repressed memories produce general uncertainty subconsciously that is subtly apparent in an individual’s general mood. Through personal experience I understand it to be like an emotional splinter. The individual is unaware of the effect the repression and uncertainty is having. The same way physically we can have a small splinter we don’t notice unless we touch that area of the skin to something, but we notice the relief when the splinter is removed. This has been my experience with repressed memories, where the conscious acknowledgement of a previously unacknowledged event or detail that changes conclusions about an event produces subtle but perceivable emotional relief that may have colored mood and perception in all aspects of the individual’s life. With that said, I think repressed memories and an individual’s mood and values is probably overstated in psychology, where most dissatisfaction even if there is a diagnosable disorder including physical signatures in neuro functioning, is the product of circumstances.
Repressed memories and the subtle general uncertainty it produces poses a problem for my understanding of the subconscious mind. Not a problem in known functions, just an unknown function. My conception of the mind holds that the subconscious mind is programmed through conscious experience and creates options and awareness for the conscious mind. The conscious mind is like the screen that the subconscious mind projects onto, processing details from the environment and comparing these details to other details to determine opportunities (functions of motion and emotion), threats to objectives, and to impose feelings to produce behavior to complete objectives. The uncertainty produced by repressed memories is what I do not understand. The subconscious mind stores and has access to these memories but does not project them onto the conscious mind. The subconscious mind excludes these thoughts in sequencing and comparison until they are consciously acknowledged.
I don’t understand how these memories are stored, but I don’t believe they are stuffed into some box of experiences marked “threat to valued objects”. Instead I believe the sequences are intact, but the details that threaten value are inactive until they are consciously acknowledged, and remain unacknowledged until the individual has reached a stage of development where acknowledging the details does not create a catastrophic risk to the value of other objects. This development is either the reinforcement of the value of objects that would be affected by the repressed memories, where the objects would be able to retain their value despite the acknowledgement of the repressed details. Typically, the reinforcement of values that could be impacted by a repressed memory is probably reinforced through self worth. Other preparedness which may also be related to self worth is the diversification of value, where the individual develops more values that are not associated with the objects that will be harmed by the acknowledgement of the repressed memories. I don’t know what the threshold is, when the subconscious if prompted to a sequence associated with the repressed memory will produce the memories for conscious acknowledgement, but there presumably is some threshold achieved through the diversification of value, or strengthening the value of objects where the value is not compromised by the contents of the repressed memories.
I believe what occurs in the repression is a temporary redaction in sequences, and this produces general uncertainty in the mind. Therapy can prepare a person to acknowledge these details, and once a person is prepared to acknowledge them, the subconscious mind will create an objective to project these details when some environmental detail prompts a detail associated with the repressed details to activate the sequence. The sequence impressions are then projected onto the conscious mind and the acknowledgement removes the uncertainty.
Like a splinter, there is emotional relief that takes place that is lasting, but prior to identifying and removing it the individual didn’t notice it was there. In my own experience it has been subtle but lasting, but I imagine in some people it may be more intense initially and then subtle in the lasting effect.
Budding Thoughts and Learning as a Function of Memory
The mind creates cause and effect assignments to details and frames of experience. From the previous paragraph I was sidetracked and often am. Writing is recalling a sequence of detail and expressing it through the symbols of language. Details within these sequences can produce thought objectives when a detail is held in common contexts. An orange has a sequence related to what causes it to be, it has a sequence in its nutritional value, sometimes as is the case now an orange can be associated with an event. As I was writing this the word orange caused me to think of a movie I watched as a child, UHF. There is a scene where a man was locked in a room and began playing a game with his captors. He yelled guess what I’m thinking. I’m thinking of something orange. I’m thinking of something orange. Know what it is? It’s an ORANGE! The scene is still funny to me and it is associated with other events where recalling it produced laughter. I cannot recall the experiences because although this detail appears in the context of those events, the details themselves may have been considered unimportant or only reactionarily accessible. Through SCA I do not have a comprehensive understanding of how memory functions outside of denial and variations of denial, and associative prompting. With that said, it may be that the details were deemed unimportant and never filed. My memory of these previous experiences is visual imagery in one event, the memory of the scene, and laughing about the actor saying orange.
Prior to being sidetracked in the previous paragraph the paragraph was intended to explain how I was sidetracked in the paragraph prior to that paragraph. This route of thought led me to understand an important function of recall. The function of recall was preceded by an important realization concerning my own behavior.
I thought about the anxiety I experienced in a courtroom about a year and a half ago. My conclusion at the time was that my anxiety was a product of the uncertainty in the outcome which is probably still partially true, but a secondary contributor not the primary reason. As I went through the sequence of events in consideration of my general thoughts at the time, which were primarily focused on performance, I realized the primary root of my anxiety wasn’t the uncertainty in the outcome because I was already acceptive of whatever outcome occurred. The anxiety was produced by a threat to my self worth. If there was something I could have said or something I could have done to avert whatever negative outcome resulted, it would have decreased my self worth which carries with it a negative feeling. The fear I experienced wasn’t because my freedom was in jeopardy, it was because my self worth was in jeopardy.
How did I come to this realization? Recently as expressed in the image promoting behavior section of this article I understood my subconscious motivation for addressing an acquaintance in a disruptive manner at a barbeque. I learned a function of behavior about myself, in how I am subconsciously motivated by the preservation of self worth. Everyone is, but I understand my functions. In learning this function whatever thought returned me to the courtroom led to the partially unresolved question about the fear I felt in the courtroom. I wasn’t revisiting this question only because it is a sequence that is part of the event sequence I was returned to. I returned to the sequence because it is an example of a newly understood function and resolves the uncertainty unacknowledged in the question I had concerning those feelings at that time. Sometimes we recall sequences of events because those events are sequentially attached to new sequences. In this example, understanding a function of emotion in threats to my self worth, is assigned as the primary cause of the anxiety I experienced in court. The sequence of fear in the courtroom is brought into the context of the sequence of self worth as a function of emotion. In other words, when we learn things that broaden our understanding of an experience, we may be returned to that experience especially if we have unanswered questions pertaining to that experience resolved by what we’ve learned.
I know the anxiety was primarily motivated by a threat to self worth because I was concerned about my performance. My self worth would have been reduced in hindsight if I analyzed the events which I would have done, and there was something I could have said that I didn’t say that would have led to a better outcome. I was always prepared to introduce new developments in the case but didn’t understand enough about order and decorum to anticipate when I would have the opportunity. I was constantly pushing to assert myself while not breaching the boundaries of order and decorum. Emotions became more complex as the proceedings advanced due to the imposition and professional inadequacies of my counsel. Needless to say, I was satisfied with the outcome, otherwise I would explain how my self worth was affected by the outcome.
One more interesting theory pertaining to memory is an explanation as to why memories of events are sometimes inaccurate. Not inaccurate based on what was perceived at the time but the coloring of memories where there are additions and changes. One reason why memory is colored is to complete the sequence based on the perceived details of the event. An event is a sequence consisting of different points of action. In the absence of detail for a point of action a presumption can become a memory. Details can be added to events that did not occur because they fit how the event was understood based on the remembered details of the sequence.
Something similar takes place in perception, where an object takes on the value of what is associated with that object. For example, if someone says that someone is an alcoholic, they may experience a negative feeling and this negative feeling becomes associated with the individual. Yet the negative value does not come from a person being an alcoholic, it comes from other sequences containing alcoholic, where the word takes on the value of the individual’s stereotypes of alcoholics, impressions of specific people and events, like being abusive, irresponsible, and whatever other impressions have been left by alcoholics. The object of alcoholic takes on the value of acts committed by alcoholics, when the object itself describes an unimposing habit of acts by an individual that should not impact anyone’s value of them. A person drinking regularly in and of itself does not impact anyone elses ability to do as they please. Its a right action for the individual who has a high value of the feelings alcohol produces, and while alcohol dependency typically leads to a lot of wrong acts, in the absence of such behavior it describes a tendency to produce motion that in itself is unimposing.
All experience takes place through frames of impression consisting of objects in motion perceived as cause and effect sequences. All people can understand all things since anything complex is objects consisting of layers assembled according to sequences. What people understand depends on its perceived utility to their objectives because value directs attention.
Other than interest in a subject, the most determinative aspect of intelligence is objectivity which is a byproduct of morality. Denial is a product of having a higher value of things than an individual does of the truth. Identity is distinguished by the objects that produce positive sensations, or what we like, and what we like determines where we direct our attention and what we will accept as being true. Identity is truth and value. People avoid information that challenges their beliefs and consume information that reinforces their beliefs. When an individual is confronted by information that challenges their beliefs there is negative feeling imposed which has two sources.
The first is fear or anger because the information is perceived as a threat to valued objects. The basis for a great deal of value is ideas, where if a person discovers something is untrue that they believe to be true, the joy they experience from the objects tied to this belief can no longer be experienced. In some cases there is subconscious rejection, where the subconscious prevents the connection of these new sequences of information from being acknowledged or the false objects in existing sequences from being replaced. Sometimes this is because there is no real interest in the subject. People accept opinions as facts about subjects they have no interest in. They develop strong adopted opinions because they have an interest in the subject appearing a certain way either to reinforce their beliefs which adds to self worth, or for image promoting purposes which also produces good feelings and adds to self worth. They don’t have enough interest in the subject to have the subject explained to them to learn factually why their adopted opinion isn’t valid.
The second negative feeling is sadness due to a loss in self worth. A loss in self worth depends on how invested the individual is in the false belief. This investment is determined by how many other object’s value is derived from the belief being true. A loss of self worth also occurs when the belief is tied to image, through the reverse function described in image promoting behavior.
Information that challenges beliefs has enormous consequences to value subconsciously, which is why such information is avoided, why negative prohibitive feelings are imposed upon exposure, and why the information can be subconsciously rejected and not joined to or replace sequences related to the subject. Of course when there is a material interest at stake or a loss of image at stake in acknowledgement, the denial is conscious, where inwardly they know they’re wrong, but outwardly maintain denial, either through silence or by directing attention away from that element of the subject.
The implications of denial for intelligence are quite obvious. People’s ability to learn is constrained by their preferred version of reality. People cannot learn things that cause them to feel bad, and a contradiction of fact and function has consequences to understanding that cause people to feel bad.
It is an issue of morality in understanding the utility of objectivity to liberty. The universal law of conscious beings is that all beings in all settings want to do what they want to do. Happiness describes a sensation, and people who are free to do what they want to do can partake in acts that produce good feelings. The intelligent value of truth is truth above everything. The value develops through understanding the utility of the truth, where the negative feeling of valued objects being affected is overridden by a positive feeling which is the product of a few points of understanding identified in the following.
First self deception creates uncertainty in other areas since your preferred reality is in conflict with objective reality. Second, self deception limits your intelligence because you subconsciously avoid and reject information that contradicts your preferred perception. Self deception changes your motivation, where you like what you wouldn’t like and do what you wouldn’t do if you understood what was true. This represents nearly all people in the world to varying degrees, people who are led by feelings they do not understand that are the product of a perception that is inconsistent with reality. From the Walmart greeter to the professor. Self deception also compromises know-how where the ability to understand how to do may be impaired from their inability to accept functions of motion within their circumstances that contradict their preferred perception of the world.
Self deception also impacts collective functioning. Communication cannot take place when controversy is a product of value determining fact and not fact determining value. This issue is compounded when people accept opinions as fact based on their value of the source without a functional understanding of the subject the opinion pertains to.
Individual opportunity is a product of circumstances, circumstances a product of systems, and systems are a product of collective participation and consent. Issues of communication stemming from self deception impact the functioning of systems which impacts individual opportunity. Self deception not only imposes on the interests of the individual in compromising intelligence, laying the foundation for fear in the production of uncertainty, impacting motivation and know-how, but it also imposes on people’s opportunity.
Denial is overcome by recognizing the utility of truth. What I understand about denial is a product of remembering times in my life when I’ve operated out of different understandings, remembering feelings, the general idea of thoughts, inability to comprehend, and my behavior. Observing similar behavior in others and deducing the possibilities of feelings and motivation for the behavior based on the known circumstances I have insight into why and how denial occurs.
It’s easy to understand that you should have a higher value of the truth than you have of anything else because of the consequences self deception has to individual liberty and the liberty of others. Despite the moral implications of self deception it cannot become a function of morality. Denial begins with a negative feeling and oftentimes the tunnelling of attention that walls off challenging information. It cannot be a function of morality where a negative feeling is imposed to override the negative feeling of a threat to value and the individual begins to accept the information to rid himself of the negative feeling. Denial and morality impose negative feelings through the same mechanism. Denial imposes a negative feeling to protect the value of objects and to protect self worth, and morality imposes a negative feeling to protect self worth. The individual must identify with the truth, which is what happens when you understand that the truth should be your highest value. More importantly, it cannot be a function of morality because the imposition produced collectively through self deception is imperceivable in the act. An individual cannot see how their self deception contributes to imposition on others. As previously mentioned,
The truth is the observation of function, observing a cause produce an effect. To establish the value of the truth, it has to have known utility to accomplishing objectives. In my personal experience I was interested in seemingly very complex problems dominated by popular deception in the promotion of individual interests. I wasn’t concerned with belonging to a group, the good feelings that come from social interaction, the good feeling derived from ideas in social justice rhetoric, image promotion within a group, or how I could serve my own material interests through the subscription of a set of positions on issues. I was and remain interested in understanding the cause of the negative results produced by human systems (political, economic, and social). My consumption of information was never an effort to further a bias. It was to answer questions of function.
Discovering you’re wrong about something doesn’t carry with it negative feelings because in discovering something you believed is true is untrue, carries with it positive feelings from an increase in self worth, because identity is tied to the truth, and the ideas and utility of knowing the truth produces positive feelings. There are other positive feelings associated with learning itself. While discovering a contradiction in your understanding invalidates and takes value away from objects that derived value from the false belief, what was learned has the potential for more discoveries to be made based on how the new thing impacts the existing structure of understanding.
It isn’t necessarily as simple as I’ve described it. It is, but not for the kind of people this country is producing. People have compartmentalized objectivity, where they are objective in information that relates to a job or an area of study, but beyond this everything else is arbitrary. People choose their reality from available opinions based on how the opinion reinforces their existing structure of value. This mechanism where what feels good is what is true is not only an obstruction to understanding the world around them, but also themselves. People can hear and understand truth over everything, but they cannot apply it, because their conception of what is true is tainted by the preservation and advancement of what they like, and that is truth to them. Their ability to objectively understand cause and effect is compromised by conscious and subconscious efforts to preserve value.
Sequencing, comparison, and assignment are the fundamental processes that produce objective reality. The subconscious mind mirrors the reality in which it exists. Understanding SCA has the potential to restore individual objectivity through the conscious acknowledgement of the processes that produce thoughts, feelings, behavior, and reality itself. In beginning to consider how to teach SCA, after an exercise I’ve devised for people to understand frames of impression, other exercises include the identification of cause and effect, morality, and contradiction. Which is responsible for the production of all thought, and when subjective value is included serves as the basis for all controversy. Dispute can be categorized as a contradiction of fact, function, morality, or value. Fact is distinguished from function in that fact represents a detail, whereas function represents a dispute of motion, where a detail isn’t in dispute, but the effect the detail produces is in dispute. While it isn’t incorrect to reduce motion to a detail and call it a dispute of fact which it is, the distinction is important in isolating the point of controversy. The facts of a subject are accepted by both sides, but what is disputed is the motion or effect a detail produces.
Objectivity is essential to human intelligence and is obstructed by subconscious processes intent on preserving value. While understanding the moral consequences of self deception can add value to truth in idea, most people’s conception of truth and function is contaminated by their biases to such an extent that they cannot objectively recognize contradiction or assign cause and effect to what they observe. The conscious acknowledgement of the processes of SCA has the potential to increase intelligence by restoring objectivity and allowing people to see subjects through components and the functioning relationship of those components which reveals the simplicity of all things.
Miami Herald Youtube “Sports World Mourns Death of Kobe Bryant”