Outside-Text! (hors-texte)

Following is the exact text of a document sent to me by one of my blog’s readers (another selfsystem as opposed to a part of my own).  The nom de blog of the sender is Harlow T. Blimp.

I don’t promise to post everything here that I’m sent, but I always might do so.  In this case, I am posting it “as-is” (with no response or commentary) first.  Thanks to Harlow for taking the time to put it together!  He understandably emphasizes that it is rough and preliminary.

Anlehnung

====================

As a self-system with a highly influential analytic component self, we have, at his behest, been struggling mightily to construct a logical model of the structure of the self-system.  We use the term “logical” in a very general sense, as in logical as opposed to physical.  Also, for the record, we prefer to hyphenate the term self-system.

It seems to us, there must be an external interface, an integrator of the other component selves, which for the sake of argument, I will call the “avatar”.  We will have a lot more to say about the integrative characteristics of the avatar, but much of that is better presented in specific contexts below.  For convenience, we will call component selves just selves.

All sensory input received by the avatar is equally and completely available to all selves, although any self is free to filter the data in any way, up to and including complete disregard.  Of course, selves may interpret the input in any manner they choose.

The interfaces among the selves, as well as with the avatar, are tricky.  We are inclined to say that every self has full access to the information transferred to the avatar by all other selves.  Everybody hears everything that is said, but does not know what others are thinking.

We do not see the avatar as a self, rather it is an arguably impartial entity, accepting input from selves, producing a nuanced output, informed by any or all selves to varying degrees.  The avatar (patiently?) waits for the selves to talk things over, and come to a consensus.  If there is an initial lack of consensus (cognitive dissonance), adversaries try to negotiate an acceptable if not amicable settlement.  There will almost certainly be cases where a resolution cannot be reached – we just can’t make up our mind.

In considering the distinction between the conscious and unconscious mind, we first thought to posit each self as wholly conscious or wholly unconscious.  However, we changed our (conscious) mind, positing that each self has both a conscious and unconscious part.  We would think that the conscious part is unaware of, but nonetheless influenced by, the unconscious part.  All unconscious parts are fully aware of the entire conscious milieu.

 

Replies are NOT necessarily posted, but I'll see them.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s