The 8 Circle (Cycle) Model of Consciousness

[Eodnhoj7]

https://druidjournal.net/2006/07/29/the ... -circuits/


"The Eight-Circuit Model

This model was first proposed by Timothy Leary, but it has been expanded and expounded upon at length by Robert Anton Wilson and his works (particularly Prometheus Rising). I’ll be using Wilson’s texts as the basis for this discussion.

This model says that every human mind is capable of operating eight “circuits”, which I like to think of as wetware programs. Each “circuit” guides the human being in navigating certain situations in life. For example, the first circuit, which Wilson calls the “oral biosurvival circuit”, is in charge of deciding what is food and what is danger, and activating the fight or flight response. (All the vertebrates have this, not just humans.) The second circuit is designed to help the organism navigate through hierarchical social structures; it governs instincts about dominance and submission, pecking orders and so forth. The eight circuits are:
1. The Oral-Biosurvival circuit.

What is food? What is dangerous? This circuit activates as soon as the child is born (if not before), and is the source of the rooting instinct (which causes the child to seek out a nipple). It is so primal and basic that when it activates, the organism responds immediately, with no conscious thought. Also, this circuit can be “imprinted” positively or negatively. A positive imprint predisposes the organism to believe that the world is safe (generally) and finding food is easy. A negative imprint does the opposite: the organism believes the world is unsafe and that the lot of all life is to want.
2. Anal-Territorial circuit.

Who’s in charge? Who are you in charge of? Who’s the big dog? This circuit usually activates during the potty training, which is why defecation is metaphorically associated with territorial disputes among domesticated primates. (See Prometheus Rising for extensive discussion.) This circuit is active in all higher mammals, and probably in a number of birds and reptiles as well. This circuit also acts quickly and unconsciously, but not as quickly and unconsciously as the first circuit. It can take several seconds, for example, for two dogs to figure out which one is the top dog. Imprinting can take place for this circuit, too: a positive imprint predisposes the organism toward dominant behavior; a negative imprint, toward submissive behavior. The imprint affects modes of communication, posture, and even body type.
3. The Semantic Time-binding circuit.

“Rational” thought. Cause and effect. What happened before? What happens after? This circuit activates around the age of five or six. Only humans have this circuit, and it is uniquely associated with language as well as rational thought. In my view, the key is the use of metaphor (in the sense of Lakoff): the child is able to use metaphor to reach an understanding of time. This is done by mapping space onto the time. Metaphorically, the future is ahead of you, the past is behind you; you move through time, just as you move through space; and days and weeks pass you by, like cars on the highway. By using metaphor to map space onto time, the child comes to an understanding which allows him or her to manipulate temporal concepts as if they were spatial concepts. From there, is a short step to cause-and-effect and the unique genius of humanity. This circuit can probably be imprinted as well, but I’ll talk about that in later posts.
4. The Sexual-Social circuit.

Who is a viable mate? Who is not? What are the cultural restrictions on mating? What is “right”? What is “wrong”? This circuit is activated during adolescence, as one might expect. A positive imprint predisposes the individual to a playful sexuality and a “live and let live” morality. A negative imprint does the opposite. My suspicion is that the simple positive/negative characterization given by Wilson isn’t a fair representation of the complexities of this circuit, but I won’t go into that here.
5. The Neurosomatic circuit.

How can I be healthy? How can I be happy all the time? This circuit remains dormant for most people; it is most often activated in healers and spiritual masters. This circuit can be activated by certain drugs or spiritual experiences. It allows for spontaneous healing of self and perhaps others, and a pervasive sense of peace.
6. The Neurogenetic circuit.

What is my relationship to my species? How do I fit in with the rest of life on Earth? Racial memory, and the collective unconscious.
7. The Meta-Programming circuit.

This circuit allows the human brain to reprogram itself. It allows you to change your own beliefs and experiences by force of will. To the extent that your mind determines your reality, this circuit confers absolute power.
8. The Quantum Non-Local circuit.

When this circuit is activated, the mind is unshackled from the physical body, and becomes a non-local phenomenon. Time and space are no longer boundaries to your consciousness.

Wilson suspected that there are further circuits beyond these, but they’re not accessible by the human mind in its physical form."

[Lacewing]

This model was first proposed by Timothy Leary, but it has been expanded and expounded upon at length by Robert Anton Wilson and his works (particularly Prometheus Rising).

These are creative categorizations and definitions.

This model has some similarity to the sense I have about our ability to resonate on different frequencies. I do not think such resonance is all physically-based, but I don't know. The sincere consideration and apparent recognition of operating across such ranges (whatever they may be), helps (I think) to expand our potential -- as we will otherwise be limited to narrowly operate within whatever rigid/solid walls we believe there to be.

At the same time, I am suspicious of how we humans can get tangled up in our supposed detailed definitions -- worshiping the false idols we create, you know? I always feel compelled to ask: What is the purpose of our creation/focus? What can we see as a result? What will we do as a result?

What does this model show you and mean for you?

[Eodnhoj7]

This model was first proposed by Timothy Leary, but it has been expanded and expounded upon at length by Robert Anton Wilson and his works (particularly Prometheus Rising).

These are creative categorizations and definitions.

This model has some similarity to the sense I have about our ability to resonate on different frequencies. I do not think such resonance is all physically-based, but I don't know. The sincere consideration and apparent recognition of operating across such ranges (whatever they may be), helps (I think) to expand our potential -- as we will otherwise be limited to narrowly operate within whatever rigid/solid walls we believe there to be.

At the same time, I am suspicious of how we humans can get tangled up in our supposed detailed definitions -- worshiping the false idols we create, you know? I always feel compelled to ask: What is the purpose of our creation/focus? What can we see as a result? What will we do as a result?

What does this model show you and mean for you?

It, while may be faulty in how it categorizes phenomenon ("may" must be emphasized), still observes the inevitable circularity we deal within in the process of "identity" and sets a rational, but brief, explanation of the categories. The question of its fault is less one of how the categories are argued, but if the categories are effectively "rational". Do they exist as center points for the other categories?

Even the "physical/non-physical" dichotomy relegates itself to a problem of definition. If all is physical than "non-physicality" is merely a grade of it. And vice versa. Even a strict materialism leads to a quantum mysticism...so science is full of contradictions; but these contradictions still necessitate some "order" at the end of the day.

[Lacewing]

It, while may be faulty in how it categorizes phenomenon ("may" must be emphasized), still observes the inevitable circularity we deal within in the process of "identity" and sets a rational, but brief, explanation of the categories. The question of its fault is less one of how the categories are argued, but if the categories are effectively "rational".

Okay, so let's just go a little further with it. What do you do with the rational information? How does it serve you? Isn't the whole point of anything we engage with based on the value it is for us? Personally, I find the potential value more interesting than the framework/form of any model or story (although those may be very creative and interesting!).

From my perspective, pushing the validity of various forms is likely an ego-based exercise intent on the illusion of ownership, authority, and control. I'm more inclined to ask: What is the point or value gained from what the form represents or delivers?

[Eodnhoj7]

It, while may be faulty in how it categorizes phenomenon ("may" must be emphasized), still observes the inevitable circularity we deal within in the process of "identity" and sets a rational, but brief, explanation of the categories. The question of its fault is less one of how the categories are argued, but if the categories are effectively "rational".

Okay, so let's just go a little further with it. What do you do with the rational information? How does it serve you? Isn't the whole point of anything we engage with based on the value it is for us? Personally, I find the potential value more interesting than the framework/form of any model or story (although those may be very creative and interesting!).

From my perspective, pushing the validity of various forms is likely an ego-based exercise intent on the illusion of ownership, authority, and control. I'm more inclined to ask: What is the point or value gained from what the form represents or delivers?

What is the point of reducing it to ego when that itself is a framework of definition? I mean even reducing all valditity in the production of forms premised in ego...is still a framework? Framework can be ego oriented or not, but it is inevitable...order "is".

Perspective is a framework of memory and thought where memory acts as the stricture which guides how we act and vice versa.

[Lacewing]

Framework can be ego oriented or not

I agree.

Why not ask: What is the value being realized via the framework? Are you here to only present and/or argue the framework? What's the point -- without delving into the value it provides?

[Eodnhoj7]

Framework can be ego oriented or not

I agree.

Why not ask: What is the value being realized via the framework? Are you here to only present and/or argue the framework? What's the point -- without delving into the value it provides?

All frameworks of interpretation form perception.

Perception forms the interior and exterior worlds we deal with by enabling a means of defining not just ourselves but the world(s) we effectively exist through.

When is comes to "knowledge" the nature of "perception", as both an active quality in which we change and a passive quality through which memory acts as a boundary to guide these actions, is "knowledge" itself.

The question of philosophy, as a love of "knowledge", inevitably lies with a question of "how to perceive?"

This framework? Just discussion.