Dear Terry,

Of course I am using "cathexis"in some way other than some dictionary definition. What thinker would do otherwise? I am bothering to go back to its first use in the translations of Freud.

I don't have any problem with your account of the body and biology except that your account of the body requires cathexis to occur at all levels of biology and agency and/or non-agency. That is, there is a biochemical event such that there is a neurological process that either amounts to a binding/investment or else to a dissipation of the energy at the level of an event (call it a non-action action). Events as quanta do not constitute actions in terms of the functions of the brain. That is, all the bindings do not reach consciousness regardless of their having occurred.

All bindings do not persist within the network sufficiently for there to be a con-sequence. This implies a con-sequence (other than a dis-investment or discharge of the energy) is required for a brain event to amount to an action: actions are orchestrations (conductions) and not simply self-sufficient presences. Hence, all the events you talk about as events of the body are in fact outcomes of bindings/investments.

All such events are energy-sufficient for a con-sequence other than a discharge/dis-investment.  Call the biochemical event a primary event horizon if you like - I am happy to do so. The horizon must be exceeded for there to be an action. Hence, you are  talking about cathexis. The fact that the brain makes this "decision" to sustain the charge sufficiently for there to be a consequence is OK with me.

I am not looking for agency to exist at this level. To ask or look for agency at this level would be to court madness. The "I" that I am happy to call "Keith" is happy to have such events brought to consciousness or not - the "I" that I call "Keith" is already occupied sufficiently with things brought to consciousness. I do not seek to obtain insider knowledge of prior processes, nor do I care to pay much attention to the biology as if I could know in any non-material way what goes on. As the judge must judge what happens in the court and not look beyond the evidence in the court, so I am at peace with the court of consciousness as the place where judgment takes place.

For some people the terms "secondary" implies something sub-ordinate. The judge is not subordinate to the crimes of the criminal or to events outside the court. So, I am happy for you to call consciousness a secondary event except I think you may need to call it a tertiary event.

Secondary events are what you are talking about when you talk about cathexted events - that is, of all the billions of events in the brain, only a small fraction maintain the investment sufficient for there to be a secondary binding which is what I am happy to call a cathexis. The ear functions at 100Hz which means there are 100 events per second when we "hear" the "stream of sound" - there are 40 per second in terms of sight and higher level thinking - you can "see" discontinuities and notice disruptions to language processes. Of the other billions of cathexted events that result in twitches and sneezes and involuntary actions, I am sometimes a spectator and this causes humour. We enjoy our suffering, as conscious animals, of all the secondary actions that plague us because there is bugger all we can do about these actions. A sneeze gets over the horizon and even the Buddha has to sneeze.  The pulsing blood in my veins is mostly beyond my ken and that is ok. If my consciousness had general and continuous access to sound I would never sleep.

So now we have entered another zone - the zone of the tertiary event. In this zone I am happy to look for agency and that thing I call "Keith".

When the secondary event (which has be primarily invested in) comes to consciousness then it is either further invested in (hyper-cathexis) or else it is de-cathexted. The proof of this, surprise, surprise, is our ability, as agents, to withdraw further investment. We are able to suppress, sublimate, repress, deny, reverse, act perversely etc. This is the ground, in Freud, of language - that is, Freud has been where your argument is, long long ago. You might want to describe agency as a tertiary event which is ok with me but I think you then also need to say this is where decisions are made.

The experiments that have been talked about in the literature that show brain events prior to conscious actions really are trivial and philosophically inadequate. When I am asked to press a button in response to a signal there is a brain event and then there is action (press button) and then there is secondary brain event and then what? A relevant experiment would be to ask someone to press a button in a regular sequence. I have not seen this experiment done, and I am quite happy to be  wrong, but I predict there will be a different outcome. That is, when you search for prior events to an initiation process you will find them. I doubt you will find the persistence of such prior events when there is a conscious sequence being attended to. That is, I am predicting that the brain is quite happy for the consciousness to speed up the process.

What? Am I seriously predicting that the biology and consciousness have a feed-back loop such that agency is a feature in the system that the system accommodates both passively (shut up and let me do this bit) and actively (hey, you are driving the car). It is the languages formed in this loop that amount to expertise.

If I were not able, at the tertiary level, to interfere with the cathexis process then I would just do the stuff that my body does. My approach implies that I (as agent) am able to teach the body through modifications to the tertiary charging of brain events. That is, I can modify my behaviour, through the specific supporting of events, and through the specific withdrawing of support from events. Cognitive therapy is based on just such a premise.

cheers

keith



>>> Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> 26/09/09 4:02 PM >>>
Hi Keith, 
Thanks for your message. 
I still see the idea of cathexis as irrelevant or at least spurious. 
I'm assuming the primary entity for agency and all forms of human
functioning is the human body and that the personality, sense of self,
ability to think consciously, language and feel are secondary artefacts of
evolutionary development generated in the moment leading to an illusion of
self. In other words, I'm suggesting as I've said many times before that
most of what humans do is determined by our bodies and that pure agency of
self is an furphy. In other words, the body has already processed the
decision to do something (and made the decision) on evolutionary response
grounds  before that decision outcome comes into consciousness and is remade
so that we can postrationalise that we (i.e. the person that calls
themselves Keith or Terry) believes that our conscious self made the
decision. 
In the case of 'cathexis's investment'. Cathexis assumes that it is the
individual who does the investing. The body just does what it does and we
have the illusion of self and the illusion that we made that investment.
Hence, cathexis is irrelevant.
Or are you using cathexis in a different way from the dictionary defn??
Cheers,
Terry

-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Keith
Russell
Sent: Saturday, 26 September 2009 1:15 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: FW: On design - again?

Dear Terry,

cathexis is a biological condition/process - so, you are taking account of
it, just restricting it to what you don't want to talk about : that is,
talking.

you might want to raise the issue of hyper-cathexis but that would be
conditioned by the presumption of a prior biological cathexis.

cheers

keith

>>> Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> 25/09/09 4:18 PM >>>
Hi Keith,
Actually, I don't go that path at all and cathexis is irrelevant.
I'm assuming consciousness , sense of self, thinking and language use are
secondary phenomena as is the ability to design.
The biology points to most aspects of human functioning preceding  and
determining moment by moment how we design, language and think. We can
function without using the latter. Hence it doesn't make sense to develop a
theory about how we design primarily in terms of these secondary phenomena
that are all using the same biological substrates..
Cheers,
Terry 

-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Keith
Russell
Sent: Friday, 25 September 2009 6:29 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: On design - again?

Dear terry

ah, for the luxury of pre-consciousness? (or please hit me on the head with
a large spanner)

If it (anything) is brought to consciousness then it is of consciousness and
hence it is found in the structure of a language. The fact that people
maintain primitive forms of grammar / syntax about visual stuff simply
indicates that it is possible to stop the flow of symbolic exchanges - I
prefer the flow and the flow aggregates as decision trees that are then
available in secondary symbolic forms etc.

Why the cathexis and why the de-cathexis? Call it self-symbolic or whatever.
The process is that of a language exchange.

cheers

keith