The human subconscious is ostensibly one of the greatest unknowns in science. However, in order to understand the subconscious need we commence by asking some fundamental questions. To begin with, is it possible that we know more than we understand?
What is the subconscious and what purpose does it serve? Is the subconscious really subconscious and what does it mean to be subconscious? What is the relationship between the conscious and the subconscious? Is it even possible to be subconscious logically speaking? If it subconscious, is it not conscious at some level and to whom? Is there sentient agency of cognition in the subconscious and if so is it singular and unitary? As the subconscious has sentient agency of cognition, can the subconscious really be subconscious and if it is subconscious how can it not be conscious? If it is conscious how can there not be sentient agency of cognition?
Scientific logic may thus be deployed to expose fallacies of our own thinking rather than so often typically merely confirm them. This opens up the question as to what the experience of logic is neuropsychologically speaking. Can the question of logic even reasonably be understood in isolation from neuropsychology? What is the agency behind the experience logic considering the typically utter unreason of human behavior?
There are at least two forms of logic, one is anthropological in the sense as constituting neurological automatization, meaning that we internalize what is typically socially constructed cultural unreason masquarading as reason. Eurocentrically ethnocentric scientists then try to prove their own cultural presumptions such as carno-phallogocentrism by means of circular logic such as “I know that my culture believes this and that and I can deploy my culture to prove it!”, i.e. essentially ethnocentric “ontotheology”. This kind of “logic” is actually the dyslogics of social terror and social tyranny of cultural hegemony in ethnocratic patriarchy whereby the self-presumed philosopher (actually usually dyslogician without even presumptions of wisdom) tries to validate cultural hegemony by means of circular arguments of rigged discursive games.
The other form of logic is the logic of the subconscious which is the neuropsychological origin of perception of logic. After all, why do not scientists credit their own respective subconsciouses? How can it be that the subconscious is so extremely cognitively advanced that it warns of dangers ahead and provides hints for devising the future?
The subconscious clearly needs be understood in manifold ways including crucially in epistemology, yet teleology is a useful starting point for understanding its ontology. If philosophy thus leaves carno-phallogocentrism behind as an obscure myth of pseudo-science, is it possible that philosophy could become a strict natural science in merging with brain research?
Understanding the teleology of the subconscious in fact opens up the possibility of the radical reinvention of all sciences. Is it for example possible that mathematics could be revolutionized by leaving the cognitive tyranny of carno-phallogocentrism behind? As the number #1 is a phallic symbol signifying signification itself is the #0 a vaginal symbol signifying undeterminedness, indeed the mystical Ein Sof (Hebrew for “no end”) of the kabbalistic non-understanding of time and space.
Why is it that we don’t understand Ein Sof? Or is it rather than we pretend to not understand it? What if Ein Sof in neuropsychological terms is simply the subconscious whose understanding is readily available yet which we deny ourselves by means of dyslogical devices of ethnocratic patriarchy as e.g. carno-phallocentrism and phonocentrism?
Most self-presumed so called “philosophers” do not only stay clear from investigating the question of wisdom (should it not be central to investigations of “philosophy”?) but are in fact bizarrely limited to the conscious in never crediting even their subconscious. The fundamental epistemological problem with phonocentrism is its humanistic (i.e. human racial supremacist) bias as it implies denial of non-human reason since logic is supposed to be revelation of the tongue.
The problem here of course is epistemological in presuming that logics emerges from the tongue rather than from the subconscious. No serious human person could believe that the human conscious is logical as logic is rather revealed to the conscious by the subconscious by means of the teleological device of intuition which does not only anticipate future (dangers and potentials alike) but actively fashions futures by means of timely intervention by hint, inspiration, association, emotion etc.
Imagine that you are on a certain course of trajectory into the future, meaning that you are heading in a certain direction and then the subconscious intervenes and effectively changes your course of direction. How is this performed? There are no doubt many ways but let us begin with the two perhaps most obvious ones. The first is intuition whose agency of intervention is epistemological, namely changing the future by means of adding a piece of knowledge or inspiration. The second is the controlling “device” usually known as the so called “superego” which acts to restrain impulses.
“Intuition” and “superego” are thus merely two of many ways in which the subconscious constantly intervenes in the cognitive life of the conscious. To add to the complexity are there typically two parallel brains in the human cranium as conscious and subconscious are each duplicated already when consciousness first emerges in the human fetus in usually the fifth or sixth week of gestation.
Numerically speaking are there thus four agencies of cognition in the human cranium; namely two consciouses and two subconsciouses. The conscious is experienced as singular despite its twin character for human cognition is the exercise of complex cohabitation between the two brains. Since there are two consciouses do the two consciouses alternate in exercising control over human linguistic and other expression and certainly not only orally so but e.g. also control over movements of the body.
The question thus emerges of the subconscious as Ein Sof; is the subconscious really singular and how could even be singular? We need understand here that the notion of the singular is the one that is truly phantasmatic and we obviously need elaborate as to why this is so. This brings us to the epistemological question of the object as a certain social construct of phallic imagination.
Let us thus inquire into the ontological question of the object in terms of strict natural science. Let us hence begin with Marx’s table of commodity fetishism whose ontological nature he assumes to be fundamentally epistemological. This wooden table is first and foremost not produced from bodies of carpenters but rather from the bodies of those major plants known as “trees”. The table is composed of a vast number of fibers and each fiber is composed of a vast number of cells, each cell is composed of a vast number of atoms and so on and so forth in microcosm.
It thus turns out that not only is the ostensibly “singular” human sentient agency of cognition multiple but the notion of the singular is in and of itself ontologically phantasmatic. Yet philosophy itself is predicated on the actually non-singular human agency studying illusory, indeed phantasmatic “objects” that any but singular. Empiricism is based on the social construct of the male gaze; namely phallic reductionism which claims that the phantasmatic object is “observable” despite clearly being illusory indeed.
Hence is the notion of singularity of conscious simply a social product of historico-collective structural sexual sublimation by patriarchy and so would it be eminently unreasonable to ascribe a unitary nature to the subconscious as well.
Neuropsychologically understanding the subconscious as Ein Sof (i.e. the obvious which we pretend to not be able to understand) could potentially help us abandon the gendered 1/0 phallocentric dichotomy of mathematics and science generally.
The social, cognitive and behavioral challenge is therefore how we can ethico-politically constructively integrate conscious and subconscious. There is no reason to presume that the relationship between conscious and subconscious is identical in terms of comparative animal psychology. Birds e.g. have photographic memory which indicates a particularly high degree of integration between conscious and subconscious.
In understanding the purpose-oriented character of the subconscious can we also begin to elaborate its epistemology of agency. The subconscious is thus anything but subconscious as it is merely subconscious to the conscious but clearly not to itself. This brings us to the purportedly “religious” notion of the godhead, namely how the conscious is guided (and misguided) by the subconscious. The cognitive architecture of the subconscious is simply non-understood by academia despite science itself being guided (and misguided) by the subconscious.
It is clear that carno-phallogocentrism – rather than as is commonly presumed the notion of the godhead – is the main hermeneutic obstacle to scientific and social progress alike. Not only are we two but we are four and indeed cognitive Ein Sof as only delimited by death. The human being herself is thus discursively the Ein Sof of her own redundant structural non-self-understanding.
The Eurolect – Politics of the Para-Christian documentation project