"Incorporate modern attachment theory and poly-vagal theory into circuit 1 and show their influence on circuit 2."
I'd say attachment theory is mostly C2 already, but the emotional distress and maladaptive behaviors tend to come from physical tension stuck on C1 due to past traumas, because 'the body keeps the score'. This eventually translates as well in negative thinking patterns (C3).
But it seems that if the issue is mostly emotional in essence, adopting a top-down, cognitive approach is unlikely to do much, while a bottom-up, body oriented method (Reich, bodywork, Somatic Experiencing...) seems to yield more lasting results. If your temple has been built on shaky foundations, changing the statue on the altar isn't gonna help.
Which is also why the thinker/prover phenomenon is influenced by the reality-tunnel of C1 and C2. If someone with a difficult childhood ended up in a 'I'm not OK/you're not OK' transactional worldview, they might intellectually see that this is not only unhealthy but also unrealistic. And still, they might feel powerless to change this perception of reality because it has been ingrained more deeply, or encoded at a deeper level of the architecture of Mind, to speak in computer science metaphor.
This is where I find it fascinating to observe the interconnectedness of the circuits, or dimensions of Mind to use your prefered terminology.
I deeply appreciate the feedback, Spookah. Thank you.
I do think human attachment starts with the infant-mother bond, tho. the behaviors begin to manifest and express themselves more readily as the toddler separates from the mother and moves from infant mind to toddler mind. The infant mind seems concerned with feeling secure through attachment, asking "is the world OK?" with the negative on that leading to fear/terror, while the toddler mind asks "am I ok?" with the negative on that leading to shame/diminishment of self. Thus Thomas Harris's I'm OK, you're OK framework seems born out of a the developmental combo of both infant and toddler mind.
And that Harris framework based on infant mind and toddler mind seems to directly and deeply influence what the Right Hemisphere thinker thinks, leading the left hemisphere prover to go about proving, which in the case of I'm not ok, you're not ok, would be a whole heap of negative conceptualizations of the "preschooler" mind.
I've seen others ascribe attachment to more of the second stage of development, but the tendency there seems to be to frame attachment as relational, and then to ascribe relationship to a particular stage, but as far as I can tell, it's all relational.
In other words, I think I agree with most everything you say there, except that I feel pretty strongly that attachment starts with the infant mind, and in fact, I think we can expand the infant mind further back to "fetus mind" if that be a thing. I think it is, but I see fetus and infant as part of the same C1/D1 psychological framework.
My rationale for connecting attachment theory with C2 is simply the gross delineations of C1=body/sensing, C2=emotions/feeling, C3=intellect/thinking.
Of course, when we start looking a bit more closely into it, things get much more complex and the taxonomy of the different dimensions of Mind gets very blurry, perhaps particularly with all this developmental stuff. The 8C model is, after all, just this, another model.
I do agree with what you're saying, and maybe we could even add that, in the case of a negative attachment imprinting resulting in an avoidant or disorganized style, the effects are gonna be felt on the first three Dimensions, but observed the most on the socio-sexual plane.
So in a way, attachment theory frames a specific issue that can then be looked at with the 8D model from at least 4 different perspectives: physical tension (either unconscious, or conscious in the case of chronic pain) on C1, emotional distress (or maybe even a numbing of most emotions in the worst cases) on C2, negative or unhelpful thought patterns on C3, and finally repeated failures to connect intimately with others on C4.
By the way, I've always been sort of confused about C4, but I've seen you describing it as a sort of sum up of the previous 3 dimensions, and that makes sense to me.
Ultimately my understanding of psychology is very much that of a laycritter, so I will take the time to digest your answer.
Ah. I see where you are coming from. RAW went overboard IMO with his isomorphisms on the Eight Circuit Model, and my goal is to get down to "first principles" so to speak. So for me, the epigenetic imprints taken on during the development of the fetus and infant correspond to "infant mind," and on down the line with toddler mind, preschool/grade school mind and adolescent mind. So then I look at these developmental stages and what the essence of each is, and then use that to define the states of consciousness imprinted during those stages. So the physical, emotional, conceptual framework feels too reductionist in my mind and I'm looking to shift the paradigm, or at least present it from a different paradigm.
Your interest in considering the "fetus mind" reminds me of the last Hilaritas podcast on this 8 Circuits Ascension book, where the authors talk of introducing a Circuit 0 of sorts, exactly for the same prenatal/perinatal reasons. I think Stan Grof was spot on when looking into this when no one before him really had done so.
In a sense, RAW himself was going way beyond the old physical/emotional/conceptual framework in connecting those with a child's development. But in my view, that might be the main reason as to why the 8C model is seen by many as hierarchical, or at least chronological. This seems even more blatantly laid out in Leary's The Game of Life. One can really see this idea of a linear progression, and I do not find it a very useful one. Then again, it does make sense for what you are attempting to achieve with your reframing of the model.
In the end, what I like about the 8C model is that it seems very much a skeleton of a model, which begs to be fleshed out more seriously, and this can be done is so many ways. For instance, I thought that Zach West adapting the model to his musical practice was a genius idea.
I will be following your progression with interest.
Welcome back to the writers workshop....
Looking forward to this play of you and the emergent digital intelligence.
This all looks very interesting, Mike!
A couple of notes.
"Incorporate modern attachment theory and poly-vagal theory into circuit 1 and show their influence on circuit 2."
I'd say attachment theory is mostly C2 already, but the emotional distress and maladaptive behaviors tend to come from physical tension stuck on C1 due to past traumas, because 'the body keeps the score'. This eventually translates as well in negative thinking patterns (C3).
But it seems that if the issue is mostly emotional in essence, adopting a top-down, cognitive approach is unlikely to do much, while a bottom-up, body oriented method (Reich, bodywork, Somatic Experiencing...) seems to yield more lasting results. If your temple has been built on shaky foundations, changing the statue on the altar isn't gonna help.
Which is also why the thinker/prover phenomenon is influenced by the reality-tunnel of C1 and C2. If someone with a difficult childhood ended up in a 'I'm not OK/you're not OK' transactional worldview, they might intellectually see that this is not only unhealthy but also unrealistic. And still, they might feel powerless to change this perception of reality because it has been ingrained more deeply, or encoded at a deeper level of the architecture of Mind, to speak in computer science metaphor.
This is where I find it fascinating to observe the interconnectedness of the circuits, or dimensions of Mind to use your prefered terminology.
I deeply appreciate the feedback, Spookah. Thank you.
I do think human attachment starts with the infant-mother bond, tho. the behaviors begin to manifest and express themselves more readily as the toddler separates from the mother and moves from infant mind to toddler mind. The infant mind seems concerned with feeling secure through attachment, asking "is the world OK?" with the negative on that leading to fear/terror, while the toddler mind asks "am I ok?" with the negative on that leading to shame/diminishment of self. Thus Thomas Harris's I'm OK, you're OK framework seems born out of a the developmental combo of both infant and toddler mind.
And that Harris framework based on infant mind and toddler mind seems to directly and deeply influence what the Right Hemisphere thinker thinks, leading the left hemisphere prover to go about proving, which in the case of I'm not ok, you're not ok, would be a whole heap of negative conceptualizations of the "preschooler" mind.
I've seen others ascribe attachment to more of the second stage of development, but the tendency there seems to be to frame attachment as relational, and then to ascribe relationship to a particular stage, but as far as I can tell, it's all relational.
In other words, I think I agree with most everything you say there, except that I feel pretty strongly that attachment starts with the infant mind, and in fact, I think we can expand the infant mind further back to "fetus mind" if that be a thing. I think it is, but I see fetus and infant as part of the same C1/D1 psychological framework.
You're welcome, Mike!
My rationale for connecting attachment theory with C2 is simply the gross delineations of C1=body/sensing, C2=emotions/feeling, C3=intellect/thinking.
Of course, when we start looking a bit more closely into it, things get much more complex and the taxonomy of the different dimensions of Mind gets very blurry, perhaps particularly with all this developmental stuff. The 8C model is, after all, just this, another model.
I do agree with what you're saying, and maybe we could even add that, in the case of a negative attachment imprinting resulting in an avoidant or disorganized style, the effects are gonna be felt on the first three Dimensions, but observed the most on the socio-sexual plane.
So in a way, attachment theory frames a specific issue that can then be looked at with the 8D model from at least 4 different perspectives: physical tension (either unconscious, or conscious in the case of chronic pain) on C1, emotional distress (or maybe even a numbing of most emotions in the worst cases) on C2, negative or unhelpful thought patterns on C3, and finally repeated failures to connect intimately with others on C4.
By the way, I've always been sort of confused about C4, but I've seen you describing it as a sort of sum up of the previous 3 dimensions, and that makes sense to me.
Ultimately my understanding of psychology is very much that of a laycritter, so I will take the time to digest your answer.
Ah. I see where you are coming from. RAW went overboard IMO with his isomorphisms on the Eight Circuit Model, and my goal is to get down to "first principles" so to speak. So for me, the epigenetic imprints taken on during the development of the fetus and infant correspond to "infant mind," and on down the line with toddler mind, preschool/grade school mind and adolescent mind. So then I look at these developmental stages and what the essence of each is, and then use that to define the states of consciousness imprinted during those stages. So the physical, emotional, conceptual framework feels too reductionist in my mind and I'm looking to shift the paradigm, or at least present it from a different paradigm.
Your interest in considering the "fetus mind" reminds me of the last Hilaritas podcast on this 8 Circuits Ascension book, where the authors talk of introducing a Circuit 0 of sorts, exactly for the same prenatal/perinatal reasons. I think Stan Grof was spot on when looking into this when no one before him really had done so.
In a sense, RAW himself was going way beyond the old physical/emotional/conceptual framework in connecting those with a child's development. But in my view, that might be the main reason as to why the 8C model is seen by many as hierarchical, or at least chronological. This seems even more blatantly laid out in Leary's The Game of Life. One can really see this idea of a linear progression, and I do not find it a very useful one. Then again, it does make sense for what you are attempting to achieve with your reframing of the model.
In the end, what I like about the 8C model is that it seems very much a skeleton of a model, which begs to be fleshed out more seriously, and this can be done is so many ways. For instance, I thought that Zach West adapting the model to his musical practice was a genius idea.
I will be following your progression with interest.