On Tue, 23 Apr 96, Leonya wrote:

)The question is whether some form of conceptualization
)(3rd circuit) is required for the appearance of the super-ego. Does one have to
)analyze the ego to produce super-ego? And is it possible that 3rd and 4th 
)circuits are not in consecutive order, but rather simultanious? 

Perhaps for the super-ego, but perhaps the super-ego is a product of a more dynamic interaction between the socio-sexual and logico-semantic rather than pure logico-semantic. In other words, the super-ego appears in humans who apply their fourth-circuit chatterboxes to their already highly-developed social dance steps.

)Also, does it seem more appropriate to have "Chapel Perilous" and the higher 
)circuits to follow the semantic or socio-sexual stage?

Well, I didn't actually address Chapel Perilous in the circuits post, but it can be discerned in the 0ZPXDian scribblatures (refer to the fifth question of the faq, regarding where one might read more).

In any event, Chapel Perilous might represent a crisis in, mainly, the fourth circuit, logico-semantic, i.e., the feeling of a state of threat mediated by the internal audioradiobabble. As a result of the linguistic trapspring, the first-circuit biosurvival resonates the sense of danger, and the others variously chime in.

)seems that the upper circuits are very disjoined from the lower circuits, which
)is also emphasised by their identification with the right/top hemisphere of 
the 
)brain, while the other circuits are on the left/bottom.  

Sounds good to me. That would also help support the idea of parallel circuits, or modes of circuits, e.g., the left-brain bio-survival being accompanied by the right-brain neuro-somatic, and sew on.

)The first two circuits
)are clearly structured second on top of first, but this k+1 on top of k
)structure doesn't seem to be very appropriate for the rest of the circuits.
)Maybe a better way to define the circuits is not 1through8, but something that
)doesn't imply "k+1 above k" structure?

Perhaps all of the circuits (even the upper/right/recursive) are present in all humans/mammals/animals/hmm but they actualize at different times, sequentially in the normal case. So it could be possible to have varying orders of the circuits and have them work out variously for different instances of humans/etc.

) Did you try to fit the psychedelic experience stages/states into your model?

I did hint at that in the original post, i.e., circuit six (neuro-psychic, for want of a better label) governs hallucinatory and visionary states, in my version of the model. Of course, Leary et al. express the use of circuit five (neuro-somatic) in those "feelin' groovy" states of bodymind. I perpetuate that.

On Tue, 23 Apr 1996, "Lather. Rinse. Repeat." wrote:

)At any rate, taking the view that the 4th circuit is strongly related to a
)sense of/formation of/reliance upon morality, I would say that placing it
)after the Semantic stage makes sense.  I learned the rudiments of language
)long before I ever developed a sense of guilt. 

Aside from the above supposition of all circuits being variously active simultaneously, I'd add that while other mammals may not display a sense of guilt, which I would characterize as a combination of third- and fourth-circuit activity, but they do demonstrate shame-like behavior at times, for example, when one has broken a taboo (and non-human mammals do appear to exhibit taboos and anti-taboo reactions in their social probability spaces, evidencing highly-developed socio-sexual circuitry.

On Tue, 23 Apr 1996, vinay wrote:

)My take on the eight circuits is that it's basically a mildly disguised 
)chakratic map.  With a mionr tangle in C2/3.

Yes. That's one reason why, for example, I found Antero Alli's otherwise fascinating and practical synthesis questionable: he put the chakras into the discussion of circuit six, psychic intelligence, rather than seeing them as an alternative model to be utilized along with the circuits model.

On Wed, 24 Apr 1996, "Lather. Rinse. Repeat." wrote:

)I freely admit that I'm still having trouble 
)grasping what that 4th circuit is all about ...
)I don't feel entirely 
)comfortable with the swap. 

Well, since I've swapped the 3rd and 4th, I'm not sure which one you mean when you say "4th." I will dispense with the numbering, since there are now a handful of sorts. More about the swap below.

)a) Animals do seem to exhibit some form of rudimentary ability to )communicate ... ) but couldn't we interpret the presence of such rudimentary )tendencies as a third circuit on a much smaller scale?

I'm not sure that the "lingual-manual," or "time-binding semantic," or "logico-semantic" is reducible to simple communication, i.e., there are many means and modes of communication that do not require language or logical thought. I think the circuit model intends to represent the more complex mode of communication (interpersonal and intrapersonal) which uses language and logic. That's why I called it "logico-semantic." And I also think that this is mostly expressed in humans (perhaps in other primates, cetaceans, unknown species, ...).

)b) Looking at my own life, by the time I developed a sense of morality 
)... I had 
)already developed significant linguistic skills.

I suggest that this is due to the human emphasis on the particularly highly-developed capability which resides in the "logico-semantic." In other words, parents, educators, and other representatives of society press the developing child into cerebral work well in advance of the development of gender roles, social roles, and sexuality. In other words, civilization permutes the natural process of development.

As for morality, I consider that it is likely a combinatorial product of "socio-sexual" and the "logico-semantic," the latter which, through religion, law, ethics, etc., is programmed into the ceaseless thoughtstream we know and love.

)c) The 8-circuit model is intended to apply _primarily_ to _human_
)consciousness.  Is a discussion of animal communities which have evolved 
)(or not) along entirely _different_ lines than human beings really
)relevant?  Is the model relevant for beings which may or may not even 
)posess consciousness?

While I'm not exactly religious about this, it is generally accepted that humans are highly specialized primates, and that at least some of the other primates are likely to share a large portion of the consciousness capabilities that humans enjoy.

John Lilly and others have also considered cetaceans including whales, dolphins, porpoises, et al.

We have a lot to learn about our animal and unclassified cousins.

)By including the Quantum circuit, perhaps Leary was 
)implying that "transcendence of the individual" is a potential 
)function/state/circuit of any given instance of human consciousness.

I was suggesting that the circuits constitute the structure of the individual. Therefore, to transcend the individual, one would by corollary, transcend the circuits, i.e., jump beyond the circuits. It brings the Goedel Incompleteness Theorem to mind (and I confess incomplete understanding thereof), which postulates that theoretical systems have certain foundations which are outside the scope of said theoretical systems, and therefore not addressable thereby.

)How is NeuorPsychic the recurscive counterpart to the EmoTerritorial 
)circuit?  I'm afraid I don't follow the logic.

First of all, I'm not too happy with calling it "NeuroPsychic." (Leary also was fond of changing the names of the circuits.) Perhaps "NeuroGeographic?" Wow! That one makes me think of heavy, glossy magazines full of pix of wonderous lands and peoples. Any other suggestions?

What I mean by "NeuroPsychic" recurses "EmoTerritorial" is that, (1) "EmoTerritorial" is defined by the individual individuating itself in the external world, weaning off the nipple, becoming a bounded individual with space requirements -- space to be filled and space to be evacuated, and (2) "NeuroPsychic" reflects this self-other spacial organization in a variety of alternative spaces, including dreamscapes, tripscapes, and other visionary realms to be explored and occupied.

Now, I am suggesting with my version of the model, that these two spacial realms can be correlated and that one is reflective and recombinatory of the other, i.e., recurses the other. (Perhaps I'm mangling the terminology, something I'm prone to do.)

)Further, IMO, visionary/dreaming/hallucinatory experiences are experiences
)which may take place "within" several circuits at once.  I have had
)visions and dreams which spoke to several levels of my being at once: 
)healing wounds resultant from negative 1st & 2nd circuit imprinting
)experiences, contacting my "mythic origins"/collective unconscious,
)exploring & perceiving the structure of reality & the self, etc.

Yes. One of my points is that the complete set of circuits is available at once, albeit in various stages of development, these stages occurring in different priorities in different individuals and societies, and that these circuits interact with each other and create collective effects. So I don't consider the above circumstances to refute the present version of the model. However, I do welcome views to the contrary.

)I'm not trying to poke holes in your model -- indeed, I find it quite an 
)intriguing model and would be interesting in hearing/dialoguing more 
)about it.

Please, fire away, and may I have butterscotch and sauce on my doomstone?

Elgar
"A complete and utter yardacre, this hombreguerre."