Substack Migration

I’m moving Blob Theory (my personal system and philosophy) to Substack! My current focus is on contradictions in consciousness, which I’ve found very impactful on my relationships as well as my creative projects like 'Fall Creek.' I’m doing my best to share the theory itself as clearly as I can, but I depend heavily on feedback so please share any and all reactions you might have to this work.

When I talk about Blob Theory, I often make reference to an internal conscious observer, a force within you that is tasked with judging or assessing the moments of your life.  The observer watches to see the quality of your environment and your actions, and it provides conscious guidance to mold your physical behavior.  You can think of it as a system connected to your willpower:  it might observe and learn that exercise is good for you, and it might compel you to do it more.  Obviously, it’s not guaranteed to get its way, but it very much feels like “you” in the sense that it is linked to your identity.  A disconnection between the observer’s ideal world and the actions of your body likely feels like a failure of willpower. 

There are moments that can exist free from this observer, such as in moments of flow or in meditation, but most of the time the observer is present.  Even if it briefly disappears in moments of full engagement like a good meal or your favorite activity, it returns the moment you make plans, reflect on the past, or wish that things were better than they are.  The observer is a creature of comparison, something that creates virtual scenarios and compares the present moment to some idealized state.  It makes its judgments and justifications to compel the body to its will, generally using the tools of reason and logic.  These tools have been acknowledged and debated for thousands of years, forming the worldview that you and I share with the modern world. 

My favorite documentation of logic and reason comes in the form of the laws of thought, a set of logical axioms in Aristotle's “metaphysics”.  The laws themselves have been touched on and reinterpreted by every generation of great thinkers in western academia since its inception.   The system that arises from these laws is currently the foundation for computing and modern science, and is instrumental for categorizing, quantifying, and processing information.  

The laws also imply a world with very specific metaphysical characteristics, such as the feeling that we live in a world made of physical objects that consist of substances with varying properties.  It might seem absurd to question this obvious intuitive fact, but eastern worldviews such as Taoism explicitly reject this category-based conceptualization of reality.  It seems intuitive to us due to the laws of thought composing the DNA of our culture, and because our most basic cognitive systems are quick to make assumptions that align with this model due to the ease of processing quantifiable, unambiguous information.  Still, it's important to note that it is not an objectively true, all-encompassing model. 

The issue with the model is that it bases itself on an unequivocal condemnation of contradiction.  It’s a powerful model and a useful tool, but it itself is ill-suited to describe consciousness, which is filled with contradiction. Despite feeling like I have a consistent identity, there is undeniable evidence that the mind exists as a divided self.  Whether it be Freud’s model of ‘conscious vs unconscious’ or Kahneman’s description of ‘system 1 and system 2’, there is a clear division of contradictory motivations or desires within each of us.  There is a part inside us that wants good things now, and there is another part that wants better things later.  These contradictions might seem innocuous, but they serve as clear examples of where the default intuitive model’s logic can’t be applied. 

I prefer to talk about this division of selves by referencing the internal conscious observer and relating it with the self in the moment that acts independently of free will.  I prefer this specific terminology because I use it within a system that runs contrary to the laws of thought and contrary to the default intuitive model.  Blob Theory is, after all, a system that is meant to understand contradiction and paradox more deeply.  

But Ruben, who cares about these contradictions in consciousness!  Is there any use in poking and prodding the paradoxes of our foundational systems?  

The next issue will explore the weak points of the default intuitive model more deeply, especially the idea of an “indivisible unit”, as implied from the laws of thought.  In the issue, I’ll apply the laws and extrapolate three implied truths about the world: objects don’t decay, they have clean edges and boundaries, and they interact with each other in predictable ways. These implied truths aren’t actually true, but they shape the way our intuition works and control our automatic reactions to things.