MEF Superstructure

Super-Science

The meta existential framework (MEF) is the prototype sign of the times; a practical saturation paradigm that attends to the complexity of our highly stratified yet interdependent post-industrial world order. MEF approaches consciousness from the perspective of phenomenology, focusing on accumulated empiricism of scientific positivism and post-structuralism.

Increasingly informed by new life sciences of astrophysics, biogeology and chronobiology, MEF encompasses the breadth and depth of the knowledge bases to outline the origins of the universe and the origins of life on earth. By methodic metaphysical analysis, it is possible to trace to the present day, a coherent evolutionary gestation of three unique spheres of conscious existence.

Conceptualisation of each sphere of conscious existence is evidenced across a uniform set of criterion such as to infer a predictive directional scoping.

Existentiality

Preliminary to undertaking an analysis of the three spheres of consciousness it is necessary to introduce the conceptual postulate of "Existentiality".

Existentiality is the phenomenon of conscious existence (self-awareness) of both private and public identity, arising from dynamic thought sequences (consciousness) underlying processes of intuition (cf. the 'Intuition Set') and the way in which conscious thought manifests by the mechanisms of both 'Neural Darwinism' and 'Symbolic Interactionism'.

Existentiality is nested in the bio-chemical substrate (e.g. brain or artificial neuro-anatomy) that serves as the locus for mechanisation of ideas, information processing, and storage of memory, which together constitute the "Remembered Present", also commonly referred to as The "Living Biography".

Neural Darwinism

The basic tenets of Neural Darwinism (cf. Edelman & Tononi, 2001) are threefold: (a) developmental neuronal selection (pre-natal); (b) experiential neuronal selection (post-natal), and (c) reentry signalling that produces spatio-temporal continuity of real-world interactions.

"... As a result, neurons in a group are more closely connected to each other than neurons in other groups. To this end, the dynamic core hypothesis states that the activity of a group of neurons can contribute directly to conscious experience if it is part of a functional cluster characterised by strong mutual interactions among a set of neuronal groups over a period of hundreds of milliseconds. To sustain conscious experience, it is essential that this functional cluster be highly differentiated, as indicated by high volumes of complexity. Such a cluster which we now call the "dynamic core" because of its ever changing composition yet ongoing integration is generated largely, although not exclusively within the thalamorcortical system. The dynamic core hypothesis leads to specific predictions concerning the neural basis of conscious experience. Unlike hypothesis that merely invoke a correlation between conscious experience and this or that neural structure or group neurons, the dynamic core hypothesis accounts instead for the general properties of conscious by linking these properties to the specific neural processes that can give rise to them".

For further information about Neural Darwinism, see Edelman & Tononi's book "Consciousness".

Symbolic Interactionism

Symbolic interactionism posits a reciprocal relationship between languages, identity and society as well as an intuitively participative prerogative of the individual within his or her social context. The theory is only loosely organised, being a product of the practical thinking of various US socio-psychologists (James (1907); Mead (1934); Dewey (1922); and Pierce (1958)) as well as various schools of philosophy (hermeneutics, phenomenology).

Generally, it is empirically established that experiential awareness may take the form and space of private or public language. Notwithstanding, in each case, it ensues as an ongoing social dialogue given that all the constituent elements of neurology, physiology, the language itself, and the very social identity of the individual are symbolically-laden social constructs. One cannot suggest a private space because consciousness itself is a social realm.

"... The theory is premised on supposition that human beings are active and not reactive. It is the the language matrix that allows individuals to know themselves as members of a group, the distinction between subjectivity and objectivity is always a matter of convention and historical situations. A person can only bear witness to their inner states and experiences in a shared symbolic context" [1]. Some more radical theorists such as Blumer (1969) employ symbolic interactionism to argue that reflexivity makes language both liberating, a tool of thought construction, but at the same time, may be oppressive by its tendency to obligate a sense of self-identity. Therefore, it could be argued that all claims to self are tentative and malleable subject to the situation or context. "... Indeed the self is taken to be the so greatly influenced by the dialogue between between the contingencies of everyday life and the consequences of past interactions with significant others [2].

Hence, the imperatives of biographic continuity materialising as the "remembered present", is constantly in flux being modified and reinterpreted in interpersonal contexts. Despite this, language may be a powerful device that may by omission become a tool of oppression. For example, sometimes as in the case of the barriers to language, negotiation may be insurmountable.