Categories
Uncategorized

CfA: Interstellar Variations 7: Physical Considerations. Hybrid conference. September 7-9, 2023.

Confirmed talk:

Self-consciousness and Black Hole Singularities – a Formal Link

Johan Gamper

Subrosa KB

Abstract

The underlying basic principle is that an ontologically homogeneous domain does not cause an ontologically homogeneous domain. By this device all ontologically homogeneous domains are causally closed in relation to other ontologically homogeneous domains. Ontologically heterogeneous domains, on the other hand, are permitted to cause and to be caused by ontologically homogeneous domains. Consecutive ontologically homogeneous domains could be the platonic mathematical universe, the physical universe and ourselves as subjects. In this speculative talk I note that one can apply the formal structure on our own emerging consciousness and self consciousness. I focus, however, that a black hole singularity can be construed as a heterogeneous domain.

Send abstracts to causal.objects@gmail.com with deadline February 5, 2023. Prepare a max 1000 words abstract (PDF) based on the paper Metaphysics uniting theology and science ― back to the basics (as in back to the basic assumptions), and corresponding literature (On a Loophole in Causal Closure).

Information regarding acceptance should be expected before Feb 17.

Fee: €1470 (ex. VAT).

Registration

Opens Feb 18, 2023

Closes Mar 17, 2023

Register by mail to causal.objects@gmail.com.

Payment

You will receive an invoice by email after registration.

Venue

Hybrid on Zoom and at Leap AB, Kungsgatan 8, Stockholm, Sweden

Conference organizer

Subrosa KB

karlpu.org

johan.gamper@karlpu.org

Categories
Workshop

Variations on Literature and Creative Arts 1: a multi subjective narrative. Hybrid workshop in Stockholm, Sweden, Thursday January 12, 2023.

This is an experiential workshop primarily for philosophers and practitioners of choreography (dance), drama (theater) and poetry, based on a development of Franz Ruppert’s Intention method made by the workshop organizer Johan Gamper. Ruppert’s psychotherapeutic Intention method is developed to integrate split off parts of a traumatized client. Structurally the work is done with a therapist, a supporting group, and a client. The client states their intention and writes it down on a whiteboard. Thereafter the client asks participants of the group one by one to represent a word in the intention sentence. When that is done the floor is open for the representatives to move and talk and interact and in due course also the client starts to interact with the representatives. In a variant of the method the therapist and the client do all the representation themselves (with markers). Gamper has developed this further by omitting also the external therapist, representing all roles himself. After many years of practicing this form of “auto constellation” he took the next step two years ago and dropped both the therapist and the client (he himself in the client’s role). The result was something he perceived as very near to drama and poetry. Working with several intentions he experienced dramas being played, poetry being read (by one or more voices), and in the dramas several choreographies being displayed.

The philosophical implications that could be seen concern matters as “could the ordinary self contain ‘sub-selves’ with their own integrity?” and “is art an expression without a central part of the individual (say, the ego)?”

We will go through the theory of the Intention method (IoPT) and work with it practically. The main focus is on the practical and theoretical link between the non-clinical application and the artistic expression.

Fee: €200 (ex. VAT).

Registration

Is open. 

Closes October 11, 2022.

Register by e-mail to causal.objects@gmail.com.

Payment

You will receive an invoice by email after registration.

Venue

Hybrid workshop on Zoom and in physical facilities in central Stockholm (exact place not decided). 

Conference organizer

Subrosa KB

Postal address: Subrosa KB, Albatrossvägen 104, 13666, Vendelsö, Sweden

Phone: +46-73-239 63 64

Website: karlpu.org

Questions are welcome to johan.gamper@karlpu.org.

Categories
Workshop

Workshop: Philosophy of Mind from an Experiential Perspective – Working With the Intention Method (Interstellar Variations 10)

Philosophy of science builds upon a conception of science. In part this holds also for philosophy of mind. Philosophy of mind can build upon a conception of the mind. On the other side the mind is not – only – a concept. One alternative regarding the mind in relation to philosophy is that we can have – or have – direct access to it via introspection.

The Intention method is a unique research tool that puts a new perspective on the dynamics of the mind. To its essence it shows that the mind is divisible and very sensitive, especially in its early phases.

In the workshop “Philosophy of mind from an experiential perspective – working with the intention method” we combine experiential observations with philosophical investigations of what we learn.

The Intention method is based on the continental psychologist Franz Ruppert’s empirical research and theory and is usually used in a group format.

The workshop is organized by Subrosa KB.

About Franz Ruppert.

About Subrosa KB.

Theory: The idea is that the mind from the beginning is a divisible integrated whole and that it can split if it is subjected to unbearable experiences. A unique feature of the theory is that the very splits are sustained actively and continuously.

Practice: The practical work centers around a sentence that is uttered and written down by an individual; the intention. The intention is something the individual wants and is therefore about something that the individual does not have. In the next phase a selected group of people works with the intention interacting with the individual having the intention. Theoretically and most often displayed in the work the sentence represents split off parts of the individual.

Clinically the work is lead by an experienced facilitator and aims at reintegrating split off parts.

The Intention method exposes questions like What is a subject? Is a little angry split off part that just hates this or that a subject in its own right? Or must it qualify in some special sense beyond having the generic characteristics like having sensations, wanting things, and having intentions?

Variation 10: As noted in the workshop “Interstellar Variations 11: Macro Psychology and the Foundation of Psychotherapy”, Macro Psychology, based in the concept of Biological Energy as described here, can offer a theoretically integrative perspective on central contemporary psychotherapies. Dealing with more profound splits, however, the Intention method offers a new opening for theoretical explanation and treatment. Variation 10 is to examine how the learning from the Intention method affects the philosophy of mind. In the language of Macro Psychology a profound split energizes one part and leaves another part drained of energy. Theoretically, however, the case is worse. Given that some time passes the original integrated whole has been totally ignored and has no energy of its own. Integration is therefore very difficult. In the light of Macro Psychology the Intention method enables stepwise integration via investment in the Intention. Energetically drained parts are acknowledged as well as highly energized parts that have the role to keep the drained ones away.

Contact the organizer for a quote if you are interested in the workshop.

Conferences in the series:

Interstellar Variations 1

Interstellar Variations 2

Interstellar Variations 3

Interstellar Variations 4

Interstellar Variations 5

Interstellar Variations 6-8

Workshops in the series:

Interstellar Variations 9

Interstellar Variations 10

Interstellar Variations 11

Seminar in the series

Interstellar Variations 12

Workshop organizer

Subrosa KB

Postal address: Subrosa KB, Albatrossvägen 104, 13666, Vendelsö, Sweden

Visiting address: Kungsgatan 8, Stockholm, Sweden

Phone: +46-73-239 63 64

Website: karlpu.org

Questions are welcome to johan.gamper@karlpu.org.

Categories
Conference

Interstellar variations 6-8: Phenomenological, Physical & Neuropsychological Considerations. In-Person Conferences, Stockholm, Sweden, August 3-5, September 7-9 & October 5-7 respectively, 2023.

The old question of the relation between body and mind recently has been reopened (Gamper 2017) by an attempt to show that the body possibly could affect a non-physical mind indirectly via an interface between the two ontological domains. This possibility was discovered as a result of a redefinition of the classical Principle of the causal closure of the physical universe. In the redefinition a universe is causally closed if it is not causally affected by anything from another universe. This definition of causal closure thus permits something in a universe to cause something that is not in a universe. Since something that is not in a universe is allowed to cause something in another universe that is causally closed, two causally closed universes can be causally linked via an interface between them. Interfaces can be seen as coming in two versions. One kind of interface is caused by a universe and is in turn causing another universe. The other kind of interface is caused by a universe but is not causing another universe. This can be exemplified with the eventuality that a platonic mathematical universe has caused the original singularity inside the Big Bang whereas the physical universe causes singularities inside black holes. If such singularities really are interfaces, the Big Bang singularity causes the physical universe whereas black hole singularities do not cause the mathematical universe. These two kinds of interfaces ― ‘vertical’ and ‘horizontal’ interfaces ― may constitute a conceptual basis for a potential interaction between two separate ontological realms.

If body and mind are two separate ontological realms we could argue that the body does not have any conscious contents. To, for example, see something, as in having a visual experience, would require a mind. If consciousnesses, however, is a vertical interface, having mind in mind would require something more – self consciousness – something that more likely would be a horizontal interface rather than a vertical one. This is new territory. Welcome with your submission to one or more of the conferences!

Reference

Gamper, J. On a Loophole in Causal Closure. Philosophia 45, 631–636 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-016-9791-y.

Interstellar variations 6-8: Phenomenological, Physical & Neuropsychological Considerations. In-Person Conferences 2023 in Stockholm, Sweden, August 3-5, September 7-9 & October 5-7 respectively. Abstracts should be sent to causal.objects@gmail.com with deadline Jan/Feb/Mar 5 respectively, 2023. Please prepare a max 1000 words abstract (PDF) based on the paper Metaphysics uniting theology and science ― back to the basics (as in back to the basic assumptions), and corresponding literature. Information regarding acceptance should be expected before Jan/Feb/Mar 17 respectively.

Fee: €1470 (ex. VAT) per conference.

Registration

Opens Jan/Feb/Mar 18 respectively, 2023

Closes Feb/Mar/Apr 17 respectively, 2023

Register by mail to causal.objects@gmail.com.

Payment

You will receive an invoice by email after registration.

Venue

Leap AB, Kungsgatan 8, Stockholm, Sweden

Conference organizer

Subrosa KB

Postal address: Subrosa KB, Albatrossvägen 104, 13666, Vendelsö, Sweden.

Visiting address: Kungsgatan 8, Stockholm, Sweden.

Website: karlpu.org

Questions are welcome to johan.gamper@karlpu.org.

Categories
Conference

Interstellar variations 5: God in perspective. In-Person Conference, Stockholm, Sweden, May 4-6, 2023

New manuscript! On God as the First Ontologically Heterogeneous Domain

“Science builds upon the basic assumption that the physical is causally unaffected by anything non-physical. That leaves science detached from theology. If we instead see the physical for what it is, an ontologically homogeneous domain, we can let science be built upon the basic assumption that ontologically homogeneous domains do not cause ontologically homogeneous domains. Doing so we let science leave the door open for ontologically heterogeneous domains.We call ontologically homogeneous domains universes and ontologically heterogeneous domains interfaces. The physical, thus, is a universe. Based on the basic assumption that universes do not cause universes it is allowed that interfaces both can be caused by and cause universes. The physical universe, therefore, can be caused by an interface. If we call interfaces that cause universes vertical interfaces the very first universe would be caused by a vertical interface. We can also look at the event that there are interfaces that do not cause universes. We call such interfaces horizontal interfaces.” (Revised excerpt from Gamper, 2021.)

Reference

Gamper, J. (2021). Metaphysics uniting theology and science — back to the basics (as in back to the basic assumptions), in Metaphysics 2021. Proceedings of the Eight World Conference on Metaphysics 2021, 27-29 de octubre de 2021, FISER, FFR, UTPL. (Forthcoming.)

Interstellar variations 5 is an In-Person conference in Stockholm, Sweden May 4-6, 2023. Abstracts should be sent to causal.objects@gmail.com with deadline December 5, 2022. Please prepare a max 1000 words abstract (PDF) based on the definition of horizontal interfaces in the paper Metaphysics uniting theology and science ― back to the basics (as in back to the basic assumptions). Information regarding acceptance should be expected before December 17.

Fee: €1470 (ex. VAT).

Registration

Opens December 18

Closes February 1

Register by e-mail to causal.objects@gmail.com.

Payment

You will receive an invoice by email after registration.

Venue

Leap AB, Kungsgatan 8, Stockholm, Sweden

Conference organizer

Subrosa KB

Postal address: Subrosa KB, Albatrossvägen 104, 13666, Vendelsö, Sweden

Visiting address: Kungsgatan 8, Stockholm, Sweden

Phone: +46-73-239 63 64

Website: karlpu.org

Questions are welcome to johan.gamper@karlpu.org.

Categories
Conference paper

Metaphysics uniting theology and science — back to the basics (as in back to the basic assumptions). Gamper 2021 (forthcoming)

Abstract

I have had the fortune to find a way to unite theology and science. It is and has been a bit overwhelming. My aim was to integrate science and hermeneutics but I ended up with a theory that integrates pretty much everything. In this paper I focus the fundamental principle that seems so simple that it could taken for a tautology but it is not. The principle, or, rather, the basic assumption, is that an ontologically homogeneous domain does not cause an ontologically homogeneous domain. By this device all ontologically homogeneous domains are causally closed in relation to other ontologically homogeneous domains. Ontologically heterogeneous domains, on the other hand, are permitted to cause and to be caused by ontologically homogeneous domains. The very first ontologically homogeneous domain, also, is permitted to be caused by an ontologically heterogeneous domain. Science, therefore, would concern inquiries into all ontologically homogeneous and heterogeneous domains except for the first ontologically heterogeneous domain. The first ontologically heterogeneous domain would be the field of interest for theology. Consecutive ontologically homogeneous domains could be the platonic mathematical universe, the physical universe and ourselves as subjects.

Universes and interfaces

Friends, it is time to reconcile science with theology. Science builds upon the basic assumption that the physical is causally unaffected by anything non-physical. That leaves science detached from theology. If we instead see the physical for what it is, an ontologically homogeneous domain, we can let science be based upon the basic assumption that an ontologically homogeneous domain do not cause an ontologically homogeneous domain. By that we let science leave the door open for ontologically heterogeneous domains. Heterogeneous domains consist of more than one ontological kind whereas homogeneous domains consist of only one ontological kind. We call ontologically homogeneous domains universes and ontologically heterogeneous domains interfaces. The physical, thus, is a universe. Based on the basic assumption that universes do not cause universes it is allowed that interfaces both can be caused by and cause universes. The physical universe, therefore, can be caused by an interface.

Vertical interfaces

If we let interfaces that cause universes be called vertical interfaces the very first universe would be caused by a vertical interface. As the first cause, therefore, God is a vertical interface, a realm with more than one ontological kind.

Horizontal interfaces

We can also look at the event that there are interfaces that do not cause universes. We call such interfaces horizontal interfaces. A specific kind of horizontal interfaces are horizontal interfaces that are caused by universes. This kind is of foremost interest for science. The combination of vertical and horizontal interfaces opens up for causal interactions between universes. The basic assumption that universes do not cause universes forbids direct causal interactions between universes but with help of vertical and horizontal interfaces there is room for indirect causal interactions. We have two immediate applications of this option. For science this is a door to a new scientific revolution.

Black holes and the original singularity

The platonic mathematical universe can be viewed as a homogeneous domain. If we take it that the mathematical universe can produce a mathematical singularity that turns into an interface that singularity can be viewed as the original singularity behind the Big Bang. That singularity, then, would be the cause of the physical universe, a vertical interface. In the next step we know that the physical universe can produce black holes as consequences of gravitational collapses, that is, singularities. We can assume that those singularities — the black hole singularities — are horizontal interfaces not causing any universes.

Consciousness and self-consciousness

We can now turn to biology and the rise of consciousness. A neglected part in the philosophy of mind is the distinction between consciousness and self-consciousness. If I see you I may be aware of it. The question is if I must be able to be aware of my seeing you to be able to see you? If that is the case only those with the capacity for self-consciousness can see or hear things. That is an option. The other option is that for instance cats can see me but that they do not have the capacity to know that they see me. In the latter case we can proceed to something substantial. In that case the very being able to see, or to be able to be conscious of something, is the first mystery, the first thing to account for in the philosophy of mind. I suspect that this very consciousness is the vertical interface causing the mind, or our subject. The next thing to account for is the subject being able to be conscious of its very consciousness— the self-consciousness. I suspect that the self-consciousness is a horizontal interface.

Extended interfaces

I will now close the circle. Say that there are yet more kinds of interfaces. One possibility is that the first cause is part of horizontal interfaces. A horizontal interface, then, without the first cause, would be a horizontal interface. A horizontal interface with the first cause, on the other side, would be an extended interface. Two options are that the first cause is part of black hole singularities and/or is part of our self-consciousness. With these options God also would be horizontal interfaces.

Reconciling science with theology

We can now reconcile science with theology if science can acknowledge that it concerns one or more ontological domain and if theology can be said to concern an existence that concerns more than one ontological domain. Via the concept of interfaces science can no longer claim the non-existence of God as the first cause. God as the first cause is an open question for science. With the introduction of the concept of a mathematical-physical ontologically heterogeneous domain, however, the burden of proof is now on the scientific side. If there is one interface there is an enormous push for God as the first cause. Science now has to prove that black hole singularities are not interfaces to secure the claim of physicalism. Another difficulty for science is the explanation of the mind-body relation. Without interfaces there is still no account for the relation. Traditional science, therefore, is inclined to explain the very mind away.

Gamper, Johan, Metaphysics uniting theology and science — back to the basics (as in back to the basic assumptions), in Metaphysics 2021. Proceedings of the Eight World Conference on Metaphysics 2021, 27-29 de octubre de 2021, FISER, FFR, UTPL

Categories
Workshop

Omega Workshop— on the Scientific Object (Interstellar Variations 9)

In Gamper (2018) the Höglund perspective is put on the notion of an object. The Höglund perspective is to make a claim weaker and thereby accessing a more general perspective on the subject at hand. For instance the claim that everything is physical in a Höglund perspective generates the claim that everything basically consists of only one kind of things. Since this in effect is monism physicalism implies monism. Epistemologically this may seem unimportant but if we regard physicalism as a basic assumption physicalism actually refutes itself as a basic assumption since not both physicalism and monism can be basic assumptions. Another example is intelligence in the light of extra terrestrial beings. Even if there are no extra terrestrial intelligent beings we can define intelligence in the light of their possible existence. One option here is that such beings would be aware of their own conscious contents. In such a case they would not be artificially intelligent but intelligent.

Gamper (2018) builds upon Gamper (2017) that also utilizes the Höglund perspective. It looks at the claim that the universe is causally closed. How causal closure is defined, however, implies monism. Monism and causal closure, nota bene, imply that all ontological domains are causally closed (since there only is one). If all ontological domains are causally closed, though, it is safe to redefine causal closure, a move that can entail that pluralism may be true! Implicitly the Höglund perspective is used also in Wigner (1970) where Wigner exemplifies how the understanding of a subject matter changes when it is look at in a wider picture.

Concretely the Höglund perspective in Gamper (2018) is that however we conceptualize the notion of an object we can widen the scope and ask what an object per se is. Even if monism is true we can utilize the Höglund perspective and ask what any object must be, hence the title On the Kind “Object”. The object on this very high level of abstraction is called Omega. In the workshop we will investigate Omega in various ways with help of the Höglund perspective and other tools. For inspiration it could be useful to look at Gamper (2021).

References

Gamper, J. (2017). On a Loophole in Causal Closure. Philosophia 45, 631–636.

Gamper, J. (2018). The Kind ‘Object’. Philosophia.

Gamper, J. (2021). Rebooting Science 1.0. BoD. Stockholm, Sweden.

Wigner, E.P. (1970). Physics and the explanation of life. Found Phys 1, 35–45.

© 2022 Johan Gamper

Contact the organizer for a quote if you are interested in the workshop.

Workshop organizer

Subrosa KB

Postal address: Subrosa KB, Albatrossvägen 104, 13666, Vendelsö, Sweden

Visiting address: Kungsgatan 8, Stockholm, Sweden

Website: karlpu.org

Email: johan.gamper@karlpu.org.

Categories
Conference

Interstellar variations 4: Biological Energy. In-Person Conference, Stockholm, Sweden, February 9-11, 2023

“A general definition of energy is that energy is tied to an object’s ability to do some work. So, biological energy would be the ability of a biological object to do some work. At closer inspection this can be further analyzed into two parts: the objects potential ability to do some work and the actual work being done by the object.

In physics we talk about an object’s potential energy and its kinetic energy. An object gains potential energy if it is positioned higher above the ground and it can use the energy to gain speed (kinetic energy). A steel ball that is moved in this way is intact and “has” and “loses” energy while remaining the same object. The opposite is true if we look at nuclear energy. When we extract nuclear energy the object losing energy does not remain the same. Obviously, therefore, there are two kinds of energy in regard to a system or an object. The one kind permits the object to gain and lose energy while being intact whereas the other kind of energy destroys the object carrying the energy if it is used.

Concerning biological objects this distinction is crucial but previously unnoticed in the literature. Traditional “biological “energy is mixed up with chemical energy. What we look for is a concept of biological energy that permits the object to do some work while remaining intact. It should therefore correspond to the concepts of potential and kinetic energy in physics. Since there is no concept of biological energy as such in the literature the first step towards such a concept is a leap into the unknown. From an abstract perspective, however, we can construe all biological activities as efforts of biological organisms to recover from load upon them. From here the next step is easy. We let biological energy be defined as the biological object’s ability to recover from load upon it.

The suggested definition of biological energy is that biological energy is the biological object’s ability to recover from load upon it. For practical reasons we will not say much about load as such. The basic assumption is that biological organisms constantly need to recover and they need to recover from the load that is put on them. One thing, however, must be sorted out immediately. We have discussed that ability to recover, or, energy, is related to load. We have also stated that the organism has an amount of energy, at any given moment, that it either uses or has to its disposal, or any mix of the two. The thing that has to be sorted out is the relation between load and energy.

As noted above the basic assumption is that biological organisms constantly need to recover and they need to recover from the load that is put on them. We can therefore postulate that load and need of recovery has a positive relation; the more load, the more need of recovery. We can now use the concept of need of recovery to link load to energy or ability to recover.

As need of recovery can be thought of as increasing with load up until a point where the organism simply collapses (dies), the organism’s level of kinetic energy will not increase in the same manner. An implicit basic assumption behind the energy-concept is that biological organisms allocate resources for recovery continuously. The organism allocates more resources for recovery purposes, if it can, the more it needs to, that is, the more load there is. At low levels of load, therefore, the kinetic energy is low whereas the potential energy is high. At intermediate levels of load the kinetic energy also is intermediate. At the same time the level of potential energy is intermediate.

The hypothesis is that need of recovery has a positive relation with load. At low and moderate levels of load the level of kinetic energy matches what is needed for recovery. When load exceeds what is possible to recover from right away the level of kinetic energy decreases.” (Revised excerpt from Gamper, 2021.)

Reference

Gamper, J (2021). Biological Energy and the Experiencing Subject. Axiomathes 31, 497–506.

Conferences in the series:

Interstellar Variations 1

Interstellar Variations 2

Interstellar Variations 3

Interstellar variations 4 is planned to be an In-Person conference in Stockholm, Sweden February 9-11, 2023. Abstracts should be sent to causal.objects@gmail.com with deadline September 5, 2022. Please prepare a max 1000 words abstract (PDF) based on the definition of biological energy in the paper Biological Energy and the Experiencing Subject. Information regarding acceptance should be expected before September 17.

Fees

Early birds (registered payment before October 1): €245 (ex. VAT).

Regular payment: €490 (ex. VAT).

Undergraduates: no fee (limited spaces).

Registration

Opens September 18

Closes November 1

Register by mail to causal.objects@gmail.com.

Payment

Please state your status (regular/undergraduate) in your registration email and you will get an invoice in return.

Venue

Leap AB, Kungsgatan 8, Stockholm, Sweden

Conference organizer

Subrosa KB

Postal address: Subrosa KB, Albatrossvägen 104, 13666, Vendelsö, Sweden

Visiting address: Kungsgatan 8, Stockholm, Sweden

Website: karlpu.org

Questions are welcome to johan.gamper@karlpu.org.

Categories
Conference

Interstellar variations 3: Self Consciousness. In-Person Conference, Stockholm, Sweden, November 10-12, 2022

“When it comes to science and the explanatory system explaining focuses epistemological atoms; the things that are to be explained are measurable entities. Modern science is simply based on concepts that are defined by how they are measured. These operational definitions have the advantage that you always know what you are talking about. It is not for the scientist to understand the concepts.

Concerning consciousness it is interesting to see the operational definition for what it is, an operational definition (sic!). An operational definition is what it is. If you operationally define consciousness you do not define something else operationally. Consciousness would be defined according to the operational definition. It would neither be right, nor wrong. If consciousness is defined operationally the definition is what you are working with. Your own conception of what consciousness is, is bypassed. In the explanatory setting based on operational definitions, the intuitive understanding of consciousness and the experienced consciousness are omitted.

While this permits the machinery of the natural sciences to work with consciousness there is a a flaw in the fundamental approach. The flaw does not directly concern consciousness in itself. If we define consciousness operationally with the definition X, we work with the premise that a certain subject in the experimental setting is conscious if X. This “either/or” scenario, though, becomes interesting only when we pair X with some contents. The subject, e.g., is conscious about this or that visual stimulus. Or, the subjects is conscious about this or that tactile stimulus. In the experimental setting we do not ask the subject if it sees or feels this or that. We expose the stimulus operationally, for example by putting the light on or by stroking the subjects arm. Whether or not the subject is conscious about the light or the stroking we determine via X. Without X, we conclude that the subject was not conscious about the stimulus.

The flaw is identified when we consider self-consciousness. We cannot present the self to the subject. Accordingly, if the subject is self-conscious or not we cannot determine via X. We could ask the subject but then we have already missed the target. For one thing we then must assume that subjects that do not answer are not self-conscious. Another thing is that we then miss the difference between consciousness and self-consciousness. The subject logically cannot report that it is conscious about something without being self-conscious about it. In conclusion a reasonable valid operational definition X of consciousness would not cover self-consciousness.” (Revised excerpt from Gamper, 2021.)

The 3rd conference in the Interstellar Variations series focuses the argument that the empirical science is dependent upon operational definitions why it cannot account for self-consciousness. In that case the understanding of self-consciousness would need to be based on something else.

Reference

Gamper, J (2021). Rebooting Science 1.0. BoD. Stockholm, Sweden. https://philpapers.org/rec/GAMRS-2 (Link to the ebook on Amazon and Apple).

Interstellar variations 3 is planned to be an In-Person conference in Stockholm, Sweden November 10-12, 2022. Abstracts should be sent to causal.objects@gmail.com with deadline June 5. Subjects must focus the core idea described in the quote above within the background of “Plan B” as stated for the two previous conferences. Please prepare a max 1000 words abstract (PDF) based on the book Rebooting Science 1.0. Information regarding acceptance should be expected before June 17.

Fees

Participants who are giving a talk: no fee.

Early birds (registered payment before July 1): €96 (ex. VAT).

Regular payment: €192 (ex. VAT).

Undergraduates: no fee.

Registration

Opens June 18

Closes August 1

Register by mail to causal.objects@gmail.com.

Payment

Please state your status (accepted abstract/regular participant/undergraduate) in your registration email and you will get an invoice in return.

Venue

Leap AB, Kungsgatan 8, Stockholm, Sweden

Conference organizer

Subrosa KB

Postal address: Subrosa KB, Albatrossvägen 104, 13666, Vendelsö, Sweden

Visiting address: Kungsgatan 8, Stockholm, Sweden

Website: karlpu.org

Questions are welcome to johan.gamper@karlpu.org.

Categories
Psychotherapy Workshop

Macro Psychology and the Foundation of Psychotherapy (Interstellar Variations 11). Hybrid workshop in Stockholm city, Sweden, Thursday November 24, 2022.

This workshop is primarily for philosophers and practitioners of psychotherapy.

Summary

The workshop builds upon the paper Biological Energy and the Experiencing Subject (Gamper, J, Axiomathes, 2020). The focus is to show how the idea of an experiencing subject can be conceived of within modern psychotherapy. We follow the track from conditioning for animals (without concern for an experiencing subject), via behavioral therapy for humans with an experiencing subject and cognitive behavioral therapy for humans with an experiencing subject where we give the subject a rational for the behavioral modification, to psychodynamically oriented therapy where we confront the very subject without going via her behavior. The three methods are explained within the context of macro psychology, a psychology extracted from the paper Biological Energy and the Experiencing Subject. Conditioning concerns therapeutic methods that does not address subjective experiences of the patient and neither address subjective experiences methodologically. For instance, you do not give the patient instructions since you do not rely on the patients ability to understand them. Behavioral therapy concerns methods that that are mediated by instructions. The patient is told to follow a procedure. Cognitive behavioral therapy adds explanations to the behavioral therapy. Psychodynamically oriented therapy concerns the subject’s tendency to repress difficult inner material to feel better. This material is focused in the therapy and the patient is informed about how the therapist understands the dynamic. The framework, thus, that is presented, encompasses the major psychotherapeutic methods of today.

(Slides)

Fee: €200 (ex. VAT).

Registration

Is open.

Closes August 5.

Register by e-mail to causal.objects@gmail.com.

Payment

You will receive an invoice by email after registration.

Venue

Leap AB, Kungsgatan 8, Stockholm, Sweden and on Zoom.

Conference organizer

Subrosa KB

Postal address: Subrosa KB, Albatrossvägen 104, 13666, Vendelsö, Sweden

Phone: +46-73-239 63 64

Website: karlpu.org

Questions are welcome to johan.gamper@karlpu.org.


1. Introduction

The paper Biological Energy and the Experiencing Subject (Gamper, 2020) contains a definition of biological energy that permits a purely mental energy that should be accounted for in its own right. Here we will look at some fundamental psychotherapeutic principles that can be drawn from that standpoint.

2. Macro psychology

Macro psychology is built upon the notion of biological energy as suggested in Gamper (2020). Biological energy is construed as the organisms ability to recover from the load it is exposed to. That load entails a need of recovery that grows with the load. The available energy has a maximum and when that is reached as far as the ongoing recovery is concerned, the available amount of energy is decreased if the load continues to grow. This is illustrated in figure 1.

For experiencing subjects it is conjectured that the need of recovery on the one hand is mediated by signals thereof, and on the other hand that the subject has a lower ability to perceive those very signals, the stronger they are, as illustrated in figure 2.

This dynamic for experiencing subjects has the odd consequence that even though the energy level lowers when load is increasing at high levels of load (compare figure 3) the subject tends to put pressure on herself to avoid the troublesome signals of need of recovery in order not to perceive them (compare figures 4-6).

3. The experiencing subject

The introduction of the experiencing subject allows for new possibilities for the organism to cope with load. We need to disentangle first, though, the biological object from the experiencing subject. For the biological object as such there is no dynamic to talk of. The object recovers if it needs to and can. When the organism is exposed to signals of need of recovery there is an experiencing subject that perceives them. Whereas the need of recovery is an abstract feature of organisms the signals of need of recovery are a reality for the experiencing subject. As depicted in figure 4 the signals can be attended to as they are perceived. This means that the biological needs of recovery are met via the experiencing subject. This, of course by assumption, is to say that the biological very needs of recovery are not perceived directly. The dynamic, however, is one dimensional — the organism recovers more or less.

The experiencing subject, on its side, can cope with its signals in other ways. To look at those possibilities we first have to focus on the the very subject. For the biological object the need of recovery is an abstract feature. The subject on the other hand has real signals of need of recovery so it is something that has the experiences of the signals. This something, the subject, has its parts. We will assume that the subject is composed of some parts as illustrated in figure 7.

3.1. Repression

The disentangling now comes to work. Whereas the biological object has need of recovery as an abstract but absolute feature the experiencing subject has its signals of need of recovery as real but with degrees of freedom to engage with them. The suggestion here is that the subject can project troublesome signals onto a single part and then repress it. This leaves the repressed part emptied of energy while the remaining parts are energized. This process can be reiterated (compare figures 8-12).

4. Psychotherapeutic principles

The psychotherapeutic processes that are interesting are the reversed ones as compared to the ones previously mentioned. Those were concerned with avoiding difficult signals of need of recovery. Whereas conditioning concerned non subjective features of the biological organism behavioral therapy (BT), cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and psychodynamically oriented therapy (PDT) concerns processes related to the experiencing subject.

4.1 BT

The psychotherapeutic principle of BT in the context of macro psychology is that the therapist instructs the patient to take explicit recovery measures. The patient by following the instructions recovers and by doing so has to endure the previously withheld difficult signals of need of recovery. A typical example is behavioral activation for depression where the therapist may instruct the patient to take daily walks.

4.2 CBT

The psychotherapeutic principle of CBT in the context of macro psychology is that the therapist instructs the patient to take explicit recovery measures and explains why (according to some model). In the CBT variant of macro psychology the rational would be that the patient avoids recovery to avoid the signals of need of recovery. Therefore she should try to recover even though it hurts in order to gain energy. A typical example is to accept sick leave in cases of exhaustion.

4.3 PDT

The psychotherapeutic principle of PDT in the context of macro psychology is that the therapist tries to emphasize with the patient in order to identify aspects of the patient that she has repressed. If the patient can acknowledge repressed contents she is instructed to try to endure the associated difficult signals of need of recovery that comes with it in order to regain access to to her own repressed parts.

5. Applications

Scenarios with a maltreated dog, its owner, and a therapist.

Conditioning

The therapist takes the dog to a safe environment.

Behavioral therapy

The therapist instructs the owner to take regular long walks with the dog, to feed it regularly, to let it have access to fresh water and to stop hitting it.

Cognitive behavioral therapy

The therapist instructs the owner to take regular long walks with the dog, to feed it regularly, to let it have access to fresh water and to stop hitting it. The therapist also tells the owner why.

Psychodynamically oriented therapy

The therapist tries to help the owner to reconnect to repressed parts that cares for the dog.

6. Reference: Gamper J (2020) Biological energy and the experiencing subject. Axiomathes.

© 2022 Johan Gamper

Subrosa KB

Albatrossvägen 104, 13666, Vendelsö, Sweden

+46-73-239 63 64

karlpu.org

johan.gamper@karlpu.org.