Mental Relativity Theory | Point and Context

Transcript from one of the tapes I recorded in 1994/1995 while expanding the Mental Relativity theory of narrative psychology I originally developed with Chris Huntley.


“Point and Context”

When we stick a pin to our finger, the surrounding nerves become deadened to accentuate the location of the pin through contrast. There is a real impact on those things most closely associated with events. When we focus on a concept, our minds actually suppress the concepts most closely associated with that concept as a means of defining it (providing edges or limits to its extent).

This is the essential step if we are to see things as particles: first we must negate or make invisible their holistic relationship to surrounding items.

So, in focusing our minds on a topic, we also “defocus” on associated items. If we have properly selected the scope of our considerations, we create a closed system by defining the edges of it through focus, and all “practical” purposes we hope to achieve are accommodated within it. However, if we have improperly selected the scope of our consideration, we may be limiting out essential relationships we will not consider because they have been suppressed. (Of course we may err by selecting too broad a scope in which the variables become unmanageable).

However, the impact of proximity occurs not only spatially, but temporally as well. And in fact, when we consider a topic, considerations that are most similar to the MEANS or PROCESS of consideration we employ at the moment are the least likely to proceed or follow the consideration in question.

In other words, manners of thinking run a full spectrum and can be seen as separate mental techniques only if differences in processing are identified. To see a process at all in the mind requires defining a process to be seen. This infers a linearity. Linearity in the mind is only a slice of the holism of self-awareness, therefore, it eliminates most of what is going on in order to see most clearly a part of what is going on. The function becomes clear, its purpose, obscure.

But once we have defined a process, those processes most similar to the one we have selected to observe (in ourselves or others) will become suppressed or de-enhanced. So that the processes we are least likely to employ immediately preceding or following a given process are those that are most similar to it.

As a result, if our “fine tuning” is a even a bit off in the process which we “leap” to and select to use in considering an issue, it becomes much more difficult to make small changes in the pattern of our thoughts than big ones. It is much easier to embrace an entire new paradigm than to slightly alter the one we are currently embracing.

This leads to an inertia of thought, wherein our minds ride in “ruts”, leaping from rut to rut in parallel, never changing the course of the rut we are in, but just adopting another. In this manner, we focus on the ruts, follow their preset courses and the ridges between the ruts become our temporal blind spots. We never see the tracks that guide us, only the paths we take.

When we think in waves, we see linearity. When we think in linearity, we see waves. But this is only half the picture. This is the methodology of the spatially oriented mind – the male mind. All understanding of process is divided into waves or lines (lines describing the paths taken by particles). This is because a true spatial view cannot be employed consciously in the male mind for it forms the foundation of the male mind itself.

Women have learned to adapt to this perspective (for women are able to jump between a male or female view of time, but cannot see the male perspective of space. Whereas, men can see the male perspectives of space or time, but cannot see the female perspective of time.)

A third appreciation of our environments and ourselves is available through the female mind’s appreciation of time, which sees time as objects, but not defined in the male sense, rather as gravitational pools of time in which all things are related not by their natures but their contexts. This is the view from which we determine that a slap in the face followed by a scream is not the same as a scream followed by a slap in the face.

Our view in traditional male models of priority tends to create recipes for what components are included in a phenomenon and how they are arranged. This would be like a recipe for a cake. This is so intrinsic to male thinking, however, that it is seldom looked at as a process at all that one must bake the cake BEFORE putting on the frosting. In other words, pillage THEN burn!

This comes so naturally to male thinking that it is not considered as intrinsic to the process itself. However, the oft-touted “female intuition” is nothing more than a series of seemingly unrelated events that indicate a temporal order of process by which the forces that precipitate a paradigm-shift leave a signature trail.

Women intuitively respond to the temporal relationships between these signatures, continually reevaluating the holistic meaning of the order in which processes are applied. As a real-life example, look at how women respond differently to a husband or boyfriend remembering her birthday without being reminded vs. WITH being reminded. It is the notion that a process needed to be applied as a catalyst (the temporal process signature) that changes the context of the process of receiving flowers or a gift.

To a woman, that difference is binary. To a man, it is a matter of degree. And therein lies the essential differences in evaluation – particle vs. wave.

Remember, of the three things men and women can see between them, one is uniquely male, one uniquely female and the other common ground. The fourth part of the quad is chaos itself. This is the subjective view. In the objective view, chaos is cut out of the picture, since we can know nothing about it. We then divide our information into fourths instead of thirds. In this view, one domain is wholly male, one wholly female. A third domain is seen as particle (or binary) by men and wave (or spectral) by women. The fourth is the reverse, wave to men and particle to women.

It is this “objective” view, which is really a pseudo objectivity taking three perspectives and dividing them into four places, that is the male view. It shows men and women as being completely opposite.

The “subjective” view, which is only subjective because we cannot see more than this, ignores chaos and sees only three perspectives existing. This is the female view for it does not allow for randomness but only holism, and sees men and women as having one unique place to be and one place of shared common ground.

These views are reflected in our determination of sympathy or empathy for a Main Character in a story due to (for men) male or female, and due to (for women) timelock or optionlock. Two different standards of measurement for the same topic of consideration.

In closing, think about the two standards of measurement for the same topic, versus the alternative of the same standard being applied to different topics. Men and women may agree on the same thing, but they will be seeing it in two completely different ways. Or, they may look at an item the same way and see two completely different things. From a spatial perspective, men and women will never fully line up and see eye to eye. From a temporal perspective, men and women can agree part of the time.