Cognition and Cosmology

The main and largely unrecognized model for the human mental being is the Cognitive Model.

In short, it says there is a Situation, we have thoughts about it, These thoughts are automatically associated with particular emotional responses, and we act or behave. This behavior is an interaction with the world, and this interaction is the situation.

Now, the typical approach to mental health from the cognitive model is to eliminate that there is an actual interaction, and qualify it to say that there are things happening in the world, and then we have these perceptions upon them and those perceptions bring about this cycle.

While this model seems very intuitive and indeed it makes for a really good closed system by which science can then default to other situations that fall outside of the cognitive model, say for example, body chemistry, to this justify why we need an over abundance of medication to solve this fundamentally bio chemical problem, The model itself is only upheld through redundant conceptual reinforcement which ignore the actual situations which would otherwise disrupt its cogency.

The actual situation is indeed the human being in the world. The cognitive model therefore is very good for a first step kind of involvement in what is actually happening in a mental situation, or a psychic situation to use a couple words, but it fails in as much as it tends to perpetuate mental issues for the sake of justifying the model.

The cognitive model becomes more and more myopic, discerning to its own categories, and enforcing of scientific dogma the longer it stays around, the less people are actually getting helped, and the more money that is made through psycho pharmacology.

I’m not saying that it is not helpful, nor am I saying that with certain people and with certain type of situation it can be a total system of help and effective. But I am always thinking of the exceptions, and in this case it is the predominance of people with mental health issues that the cognitive model only gets a short way towards helping.

Then, often instead therapists and psychologist Fail to notice that there might be an issue with their basic concept of what’s occurring, and they continue the same method of approach to the problem. The problem continues to be conceptualized within the cognitive model, and they merely decide to intervene differently, use different concepts but upon the same idea that there is this cognitive flow functioning and that ideally it is responsible or at root for all mental health issues.

*

I feel there is a better way. This better way is to see that the cognitive model is like a doorway into what is actually occurring. It is a way to begin to conceptualize what is going on, but then also a way to problematize that concept for the client.

That is to say through the creating Problems with fundamental concepts, concepts that are assumed, thereby does the problem of mental health, the mental health issue, become opened up to the possibility that it is not really a problem. This is to say, that the problem itself is aggravated in that cosmologically intuited problem that cognition is something that happens within the human being which is essentially separated from the actual functioning world.

The problem here is then within the construct itself. We thus move into process over placating.

Two dynamics are that’s it play in the perpetuation and maintenance of a problematic heuristic towards mental health, and the cognitive model is that route in this.

On one hand, the cosmological separation of the individual from the rest of the world opens up a gap in conceptual space. This gap that can be only filled in one of two ways,

and that these two ways work to reinforce cosmology behind the scenes.

Number one. The gap is filled with this empirical enigmatic phenomenon called biology, but specifically brain and neurons and Nuro chemistry. The cognitive model can always defer the fundamental problem to be that of Nuro chemistry and Bio physiology. And, as these empirical approach never really solve the problem, but then serve to found and perpetuate a resource for doctors and other moneymakers as career and institution, The client themselves, why approached with a genuine compassion is never the less left out to dry. Strung along a route led by a carrot which is always transcendent to their experience. Placed in the hands of the benefit of the doctors and the therapists and the scientist.

Hence two; the other way to fill this gap is ideological. The reason why the default is to Nuro chemistry and biology is so that the ideology is either understood as a fantasy, or Theory, or as just resultant to the Nuro chemistry, which is nothing more than to say that we our individual human beings with Nuro chemical problems that is having an issue of concept and precept upon the world that is separate from us.

The ideology fills the function of a religious cosmology. For, the function of religion is not analysis, it is not that “God is dead”. The very notion that God is dead fulfills the religious function of the modern individual in society and the world. Just as its counterpart, religious theology in the institutional sense, for fills the gap involved in the strictly academic theoretical application of sense.

Is mental health the same as physical health?

xIs it?

That is to ask: Should mental health, its manifestations and issues, be considered the same way as we consider a physical body, which is to say, that all mental issues must reduce to physical fact ?

If we can rely upon popular scientific knowledge then the answer is resounding yes!

If this is true, though, if science is finding out true things, then why has mental health issues only expanded and been aggregated with the rise of scientific solution?

If cognition linked with empiricism is as thorough and competent as they propose in practice, then why is everything seemingly going to shit more and more?

Any ideas ?


x

Drawing Lines….Part 2.

The issue we have before us is the debate between the phenomenological field, and the empirical field. the age old debate between the subject and the object. These seem incompatible, and they are. The reason why they are incompatible is because of the nature of their foundations.

As I explained in the last post, the phenomenological field is wide open. It is so open, it can destroy basically any argument that is not itself. This is what we learn from Kierkegaard ( I won’t go into all the K stuff here). Once doubt had manifested as the basis by which all things are able to be constituted, then everything that can be argued must take account in the apparently true aspect of cognition to destroy everything theoretical. This is the problem of the phenomenological reduction of Hussserl: The criterion to which any real thing (valid argument) must measure against is the ability to account to nothing. This is the catch of the phenomenal ideal of cognition and its concordant method for argument, that…

absolutely_nothing_road_sign_lg t

anything which proposes to be based in something without theoretically grounding it in nothing is invalidated. 

Yet the same can appear from the other camp; which, for a term, could be called the “Object” camp. The camp where there are real things that we have to contend with that do not conform to the central phenomenal cognition.

This camp, in effect, says that

we indeed gain information from elements of cognition that do not reside within the central phenomenal subject.

The catch is that the argument is already on the side of the Object-Realists. This is because of the way theory is represented, not to cognition, but to the real field of cognition. The real field of cognition, thus, is also likewise chained to the phenomenological field. This is not only because they form a closed loop of cognition, but also because they apparently are unable to see the truth of the other side. and therefore, both rely upon a transcendent other by which to gain their positions. This other they absolutely cannot account for due to the nature of the cognitive presentation; that which contradicts the particular position, is simply not viewable but only viewable through the cognition that is operating at the time. As well, the ideal that we can through a series of cognitive appropriations and conceptual manipulations, get outside of this correlation, is occurring on both sides (objectively) even as it appears to be subject to the condition of phenomenological field.

The two correspond in this way:

If I walk into a wall, the bloody nose I get and the pain running through my broken nose, as an event, defies any sort of cognitive phenomenon. The phenomenon of cognition always appropriates the event after the event, at which time, the event has ceased to exist and become a feature of cognition. Yet,my nose is bleeding, and this cognition indicates an objective field that we must assume has some sort of validity. But in both cases, the assumption is that we can extend the event of pain into a series of knowable causes and outcomes, whether it be “merely cognition” or “objective reality”.

The debate, it seems to me, can only come to bear the fact that we are not dealing with an either/or situation, but a kind of faith in the apparatus of cognition to give us reliable information as well as a reliable manner to process it truthfully from the experience of worldly things, which is to say, a posteriori.

I think we still have a ways to go. There is a correspondence that we have not come upon yet. The question is which faith, which expression, is keeping fidelity to the truth of existence, not merely phenomenal word play, or intensional assertion, but the objects beyond the abysmal playground?

To get anywhere is to explore all the conceptual defaults of a paradigm. We have explored most of the subject phenomenon, because intensional theory must ‘jump ahead’ to create demand for the intellectual product (where are we going so fast? We missed something! ) now we go through the object.

So the issue is just where to draw the lines, where to prevent the continued fall into conceptual nothingness of relation, and where thus to draw the line which best grants us a view onto what is able to effect us from outside.