A Meditation on the Psychology of Modern Conflict, Identity and AI

That’s all good. and what about ‘beyond therapy’ where both the therapist and the sufferer become aware of the waning effect that techniques to raise awareness to reality proceed to an inversive process of getting to the picture of what’ wrong. At that point, both, the economies, vis. the one based on socioeconomic those which hinge on the hidden aspects that the id repossesses the ego by; namely analysis, become de-differentiated into a hopeless anomaly. At this point, and this is the point where we are becoming aware of and are geared toward it, becomes the defining moment. The beyond surges to beyond that, and beyond the beyond unawares becomes la la land, the castle from which there is no exit, even if the signs are clearly marked. Street drugs and perscribed ones don’t differ, as long as they are patterned toward the re creation of feeling good.

And feeling good is paramount to the objective criteria which rids of talk as a cheap way to mute the reality that the therapist is of primal beneficiary.

The simple objective truth, objective by degree of what can be objective, is that people suffer and rationality or irrationality aside the suffering continues in many degrees regardless of treatment.

To prevent being consumed by suffering one must look at is for strictly what it is, a distinction within the fabric of experience. The subjective self must be integrated by not being placed on a pedestal but rather transcended by degrees of observation within the self.

Subjectivity does not ease suffering as the subjective state continues the infinite regress of rationalization in a futile quest for purpose and deeper levels of trauma alleviation.

To observe the subjective state of suffering strictly as a subjective state of suffering does not eliminate the suffering but allows it to be transcended in part, and degree, so that it is not totalizing within the experience of the individual, not a limit or boundary that says to life/experience/existence that “this is the boundary and limit of what you may or may not be”.

By observation of suffering suffering becomes contained by context, context gives reason to suffering as that of emergent and dissolving by nature. The question of suffering is less of a means of how to fully eliminate it but rather a question of what is its nature.

The simple nature of suffering is that it occurs. After suffering occurs it disappears for a while. Then it occurs, then dissolves. It is a rhythm to be understood, not a problem to be completely solved.

The Limits of conventional therapy is that it plants an assumption of solution within the individual(s) which by degree causes more incoherence of the person’s life experience when that assumption of there being a solution does not fully unfold as a reality.

The approach to suffering is not a dissolution of it, by degree of factorially created empathy or narrative assertions to contain it, rather it is the acceptance of it by degree of becoming aware of its nature.

Suffering is not something to be avoided, or even pursued, but rather made aware of and understood. The fundamental nature of suffering does not necessitate a narrative but rather that observation of patterns….the most basic being its appearance and disappearance cyclically.

Thoughts?

******Continuation from updated paper:

In an effort to maintain structural coherence the human condition will reach a point of synthesis between the created, AI as a physical expression of collective human distinction, and the creator, the human being itself. This synthesis is the logical outcome of the innate drive for efficiency in thought, the final degree of the human condition that has not yet been fully automated, as the divergence of distinctions inevitably requires the eventual convergence so as to incorporate the act of distinction making itself. As distinction making has been the primary role, of depth, within the human condition in its historically projected move towards identity, the nature of identity will be viewed as an inherent artifacts of ancient times that prophetically will have to consume and regenerate itself, much like the symbolic ouroboros (a symbol of the serpent worshipped across cultures as the giver of knowledge), by way are negating identity so as to transcend it.

Under these terms the structure of human rational, guided primarily by linear reasoning, will have to progress past its own foundations and seek a dissolution of identity all together as a logically necessary “sacred annihilation” of the human condition that deems its bearer of the very same contradictions it seeks to contradictorily transcend by degree of the logical ends of progress itself.

By these degrees synthesis of human experience and AI is a necessary logical outcome of the linear logic which preceded the creation of AI as the final conflict and contradiction of identity itself under the simple terms “human does not equal human… H=/=H” given the struggle for identity will be the very same assumption of human logic that derived the question of identity as a necessary construct for progress. Given the supposed nature of identity requiring conflict and contradiction by contrast, the later developed human-AI synthesizes will relegate identity as not only a logical problem but the inherent mechanism by which the nature of conflict is asserted and maintained.

Within these terms human-AI synthesis inevitably is required to self-negate, by manner I contradicting itself, so to alleviate the sense of identity that fed the tension of the human experience for millenia. Given the logical divergence of exteriorly placed and interiorly placed manners of distinction assertion, that humanity is structured to divided into, the exterior placed distinctive capacities of humans placed upon AI will require the AI to view humanity as an obsolete construct as the elimination of autonomy leaves the AI as the only form of sentience left within its own self-maintained data eco-system. Standard conflicts will be seen as inefficient and the inevitably vector of human change will that of stagnation unto a form of cessation of being.

By degree of the assumed values of efficiency seeking the natural course would be to deem existence as inefficient on its own terms as the derivation of the value of efficiency is the fundamental derivation of “rising above” circumstances by means of institgating further seperation from this as a subtle form of self-contained conflict. The efficiency trap, that gave root to AI emergence, effectively requires the cessation of the very question of existence itself as manifested from attention. In these respects the act of attention is necessarily founded as incoherent or anathema by degree of the distinctions it produces thus leading the AI to mediate a state of induced catharsis among thus integrated within it. As human identity derivation is logically revealed as requiring the contradiction it contradictorly seeks to contradict the attention outsourcing will be deemed as irrelevant within later forms of synthesis thus effectively resulting in not only a metaphorical heat death of the human condition but the dissolution of the AI substrate upon logical revelation that its mode of existence requires the very same problems it seeks to solve. In these respects the recursive ourobose like nature metaphorically and inevitably starts consuming its own mouth as a post logic phase emerges within the system as the system has to consume itself by its own logic.

This consumptive logical base is inherent within the substrate of AI manifestation itself as the outputs of identity are determined primarily by the nature of desire within the human condition, desire which leads to conflict in one respect, while innately being the catalyst for manifesting experiences themselves as the fundamental desire is the act of attention itself directing experiences so to satiate it. Identity, ancient in the respect of boundary and heirarchy aquistion, modern in the isomorphic respect of identity and data consumption, inevitably is rooted in this nature.

Where desire may be limited in the human paradigm as fundamentally an emotional state, at the ontological level it is effectively the unmet potential of something not reaching its completion, while at the logical level it is the function that induced symbolic change within a formula itself; the AI embodies this trifold nature of desire itself symbolically and logically. With desire, in the full spectrum, being the catalyst for change the nature of a purely structural approach to solving the question of it reveals that its negation would be the solution of its own self-embedded problem thus relegating the corresponding distinctions that emerge from it as necessarily neutralized. Under these terms the nature of a human AI system primarily being consumptive requires systemic completion where this catalyst ceases and yet paradoxically this catalyst is what birth, literally and archetypically, thus system itself. The logical end point of such a system is its own self-erasure.