L.Kleine-Horst: Empiristic theory of visual gestalt perception. Hierarchy and interactions of visual functions. (ETVG), Part 10 VI
The Four-Manner Four-Level Model of Reality
Perceptual experience cannot be accounted for by the materialistic- monistic principles of natural science, because it is essentially different from matter. It also cannot be accounted for by a dualistic world view, that, besides matter, provides a second sphere of being: the phenomenal sphere, in which experience occurs. In a dualistic world, experience must be accounted for by matter, however, no such attempt made to date has been successful, although a lot is known about neurons involved in, for example, visual experience. The ETVG was developed without considerations like these given here, it is a theory that provides three spheres of being in order to account for visual facts: the material, phenomenal, and functional spheres of being.
Just as I had developed the ETVG as an answer to the question "What does a system for visual perception have to look like if it includes the facts of perception?", I now asked myself the following question: "What does a Weltbild have to look like if it includes both the ETVG and the traditional scientific Weltbild (which cannot include the ETVG)?" I developed a comprehensive model of reality by assuming that the basic structure, which I had found in visual perception to be that of both the second and the third evolutionary level, is the same as that of the fourth and of the first evolutionary level. This highly symmetrical supertheory is the Four-Manner Four-Level Model of Reality.
1. Outline of the model
The following brief outline of the new model of reality might be as difficult to understand as the ETVG, when read for the first time. Nevertheless, because it is the frame of reference for the ETVG, it should be presented. In the following, I shall elucidate upon the possible importance of the new model in providing a better understanding of the world we live in.
Initially, I conceived the "Three-Sphere Four-Level Model of Reality" (Kleine-Horst 1992d) to which the ETVG is referred, and which I have already mentioned here and there. Four levels, or layers, of reality were already conceived by Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and Hartmann (1964); Lorenz (1981) interpreted them as evolutionary levels. My own contribution to ontology was to view the four-level evolution as taking place in three spheres of being. Thinking in material, functional, and phenomenal spheres is well suited to describe and account for the visual process in the second and third level, i. e. in the physical and the psychic evolutionary level. We can also consider the human personality to be "made up" of four levels (or layers), as manifestations of reality's four-level evolution. Thus the body and psyche represent the second and third level of personality (see Figs. 1-4 and 7-1).
When I tried to elaborate the structure of the fourth level, I conceived four spheres of being, instead of three, as a conception more suitable for understanding reality as a whole. Furthermore, the sphere-model, where the functional sphere is "located between" the material and phenomenal spheres, appeared to me to be somewhat spatially structured, which did not strike me as being particularly desirable. Additionally, I then asked myself why there should be just three spheres of being instead of, for example, four or seven. I searched for a solution to this problem, and found it, in conceiving a four-manner instead of a three-sphere model. The ETVG itself can continue to be referred to the three-sphere model, because the fourth sphere/manner does not concern the second and third evolutionary levels, to which the ETVG is referred. In the following, I shall present a brief outline of this Four-Manner Four-Level Model of Reality. The three-sphere model is described in greater detail elsewhere (Kleine-Horst 1992d).
Figure 10-7 schematically shows the hierarchical structure of the four-level evolution of reality that exhibits four different, and definable, manners of being. Even if the ETVG assumes the visual process to take place in a frame of three spheres of being, this trialistic view would be in opposition to all other theories of sight that are either (materialistic-) monistic or (mind/matter-) dualistic. In the manner-concept, the deviation of the ETVG from other theories is yet greater than in the sphere-concept, because, in the latter concept, a being is assumed which is divided into several spheres, but in the other case an undivided being is assumed, which expresses itself in several manners.
Figure 10-7. The Four-Manner Four-Level Model of Reality
I developed the new model by assuming reality to be very symmetrical, so that, for example, all four evolutionary levels possess the same structure, and all spheres of being, too, possess their own, but same, structure. Each evolutionary level expresses itself in two manners of being, and each manner of being expresses itself in two evolutionary levels. The "left-hand" manner of each level contains an independent "primary hierarchy", which is, so to say, a direct result of the evolutionary process. The "right-hand" hierarchy is only a "secondary hierarchy" that depends on the "left-hand" "primary hierarchy" insofar as it consists of the same entities, albeit in a different manner. In Fig. 10-7, the right pointing arrows indicate that the secondary entities are dependent correlates of the primary entities. The upwardly pointing arrows indicate the direction of both the evolution of reality and the development of personality. The reflexive arrows indicate the reflexivity of the respective entities, i.e. their capability of reproduction, of producing replicas, producing themselves, so to speak. Each primary entity possesses this capability, but no secondary entity does, except one: the uppermost, as this is at the same time the lowest entity of a new primary hierarchy, running through the next-higher evolutionary level. The arrows pointing downwards show the backward influence from the higher-level to the lower-level entities.
We have met such backward influences, as for example those that are involved in "filling-in" processes (Part 3). Since the uppermost secondary entity also influences the uppermost primary entity (left pointing arrow), information is processed "from the bottom up" as well as "from the top down" through all four evolutionary levels of reality (and personality).
Let us outline the entire evolution, with its four levels, and two manners at each level. At the lowest level, there is the "Universal Cosmic Order" (UCO), the actualization of which led to the "Big Bang", through which inorganic matter ("Universal Cosmic Matter", UCM) came into existence. When inorganic matter occurs, the order manner of being, i.e. the Universal Cosmic Order (UCO) entities, only has changed into the material manner of being. We can say the same in different words: at the lowest evolutionary level, the universal-cosmic entities of being express themselves in two different manners: in the order manner, and in the material manner. The same entities are at each level; they only "look" different. I shall later show what the difference is between these two manners of identical entities.
The material entities of the uppermost UCM level reproduce themselves (shown by the reflexive arrow) according to M.Eigen's "hypercycle" (Eigen and Schuster 1979), and cause material entities to exist at a higher level: vital matter (VM). The actualization of vital matter causes the creation of a third manner of being: the functional manner, with its vital functions (VF). At this second level, too, it is the same entities that express themselves twice, in this case, however, once as matter, and once as function. With this physical (or bio-) evolutionary level of being, "life" was created, represented by a phylogenetic hierarchy of life forms. The uppermost vital matter is the neuron, its function is excitation. This function reproduces itself so that functional circuits, i.e. neuronal circuits, are formed.
The self-reproduction of neuronal functions is the condition for the development of a new, third, evolutionary level. This level is, as Fig. 7-1 shows in great detail, hierarchically structured as well: there is a hierarchy of psychic functions (PF) that is based on the hierarchy of physical (vital) functions (VF). The psychic functions' actualization causes psychical (perceptual) consciousnesses (PC) to exist. This means that the psychic entities change their manner from function to phenomenon. In the ETVG, it was assumed that the actualization of the psychic functions, the "gestalt functions (factors)", create a new sphere of being, containing "gestalt qualities". As already mentioned, however, for the ETVG there is no difference whether we speak of "manners" or of "spheres", because the difference between the "manner" and "sphere" models is relevant in particular for the first and fourth level, to which the ETVG seldom refers directly. Now we can also say: the actualization of the third level entities, expressed in functional manner, creates a new manner of the same entities, the phenomenal manner.
By means of the self-reproduction of the uppermost entity of the PC (i.e. "self-consciousness"), another sort of consciousness at a new evolutionary level, the mental level, is developed, "Mental Consciousness" (MC), or "Individual Cosmic Consciousness" (ICC). When actualized, it expresses itself in a second manner: "Mental Order" (MO), or "Individual Cosmic Order" (ICO). Please, just accept what is said here; its meaning will be made clear later, bit by bit.
In this respect, it is very significant that the secondary manner at the fourth level is the same as the primary manner at the first level: the order manner. Thus reality in its entirety is "circular": reality "starts" in order manner with a primary hierarchy (UCO), and "ends" in order manner, with a secondary hierarchy. This Individual Cosmic Order (ICO) is to be thought of as "part" of the Universal Cosmic Order (UCO). In other words: the ICO (MO) is an individuation of the UCO.
This is a more formalistic description of the new model of reality, which still contains a great amount of speculations. Sometimes, however, a qualitative hint has been given on how to interpret the model in detail. When I tried to analyze the structure of the first evolutionary level (Kleine-Horst 1993/94), I had to assume that matter (UCM) is hierarchically ordered. I conceived inorganic matter as a hierarchy of the entities "time", "space", and "energy/mass" - in this order "from the bottom up". According to the four-manner model, these right-hand entites (UCM) are only material manner expressions of the same entities on the left (UCO), which are considered to be in the order manner. Thus, as order manner entities are not material manner entities, non-matter is the condition of matter, a concept that agrees with the modern speculations of quantum theorists. If the time-space-energy/mass hierarchy of UCM is true, then the four-manner four-level evolution can be interpreted as the progressive deactualization of the UCO-hierarchy, the actualization of which began with the Big Bang. The deactualization of the ETVG hierarchy, or part of it, is regressive, i.e. it causes a cessation, step by step, of the hierarchically ordered entities "from the top down", through which every further step contains less content than the previous one. A progressive deactualization means, in contrast, that with cessation of the hierarchically ordered entities (time-space- energy/mass) "from the top down", new entities are created, i.e. every further step contains more content than the previous one. This is the case in the evolution of reality as a whole, in which with every step of deactualization a new, and higher, evolutionary level emerges, in which process one of the three crucial entities is always dismissed, step by step, first, the energy/mass, second, the space, and third, the time.
At the lowest evolutionary level, matter (UCM) was created, i.e. the hierarchy of time, space, and energy/mass, in this order "from the bottom up". This happened through the actualization of the hierarchy of the conditions of matter, i.e. the conditions of time, space, and energy/mass, in the Universal Cosmic Order.
At the second evolutionary level, vital matters (the time-space-energy/mass) hierarchy create functions. The functional manner, however, differs from the material manner in that it is lacking in the highest-level material entity: energy/mass. Function is bound on matter, also on its energy/mass, but is not itself energetic, and does not possess mass. It still contains, however, the space and time entities. This is the first stage in the "progressive deactualization" of matter-conditions.
At the third (psychic) level, the entities change their functional manner into phenomenal manner, when actualized. Phenomena are lacking not only in energy/mass, as are the functions, they are also lacking space. Perceptual consciousness (PC), i.e. visual experience, for example, is not located in space, it is not itself spacial, only its contents are often spacially organized, as for example, when we visually perceive any spatial "configuration". The phenomena themselves, psychic consciousnesses, are not spatially three-, two- or one-dimensional. Yet they remain temporally organized; they happen in time, they need a certain time to exist. This is the second stage in the "progressive deactualization" of the threefold matter-condition.
At the fourth level, the third and last stage of deactualization is reached. We find, on the left, time consuming entities: mental consciousnesses. On the right, however, there are the same entities, but without temporal aspect, or temporal locations, they are indeed not only lacking energy/mass and space, but also time. They "appear" in the order manner; they are, so to speak, pure order.
Now, after three steps, from the second to the fourth level, the progressive deactualization of the three-level conditions of the time-space-energy/mass hierarchy has come to an end, and the three material entities: energy/mass, space, and time, have been withdrawn in this sequence in three steps. With each further step of deactualization, the "freedom" of reality increased. At the first level, reality was limited through time, space, and energy/mass. At the second level, the limitations caused by the necessity of a certain amount of energy/mass for matter to exist, ceased. At the third level, the spacial, and at the fourth level, the temporal limitations ceased.
Some readers may still ask: what's all this about? This system looks like an interesting speculation, but without any importance for progress in science. Only when taken as pure speculation, however, is it without importance; when taken as a (admittedly most abstract) theory of reality, it will make its scientific implications apparent, as a theory is capable of being tested. One cannot expect this four- manner four-level supertheory to be tested by confronting it immediately with facts. But one can expect to derive subtheories from it, or to find such subtheories that have already been proposed, that can immediately, or again via deriving further subtheories, be tested with facts. The ETVG is such a subtheory that can be considered to have been derived from the Four-Manner Four-Level Model of Reality, although it was historically developed "on its own", and then led to the new model of reality as its "supertheory". In the next but one section other important aspects will be presented.
2. Criticisms of the model
Ref.1 responded to the three-sphere model as follows: "He rejects dualism in favour of three spheres of being (or some such) and I could make no sense of it." He is right; he could not really recognize its sense reading only the brief outline of the model, enclosed in the paper to be reviewed.
B5 received besides Parts 1, 2 and 8 a preface that contained an outline of the trialistic model of reality. He did not understand it. As I admitted above, even in this case I could not expect anything close to full understanding, and thus I followed the recommendation of this reader to put the description of the model at the end, and I transformed, at the same time, the three-sphere model to the four-manner model.
B4 considered the subtitle of the German version of this theory ("Prelude to a new model of reality") "very demanding". He is right, the ETVG is as demanding as the Berlin gestalt theory. Both are aimed at overcoming the ontological dualism, the Berlins by reducing it to monism, the ETVG by expanding it to trialism, or even quadrialism. The Berlin gestaltists failed in their aim, the success of the ETVG is still to be proven in the future.
The Dutch neurophysiologist raised no objections to the three- sphere model as described in Parts 1 and 2. In 1987, he received these Parts as the first booklets of a series, which was titled "Where the body ends and the psyche begins". He proposed leaving the psyche in the body. I promised to do so, if it were indeed inside the body. According to the new model, however, the psyche is rooted in the body (as the lowest psychic function is built on the highest physical function), but is not part of the body; it is not really enclosed within the body.
A philosopher received, in 87 pages, a very detailed version of the three-sphere model (Kleine-Horst 1992d), and commented:
"As full of ideas your expositions are, as strange they strike a more traditional professional philosopher. It would be desirable if you used the concept instruments of our great authors. (Your attempts to get away from dualism is somewhat suggestive of the physicist Wolfgang Pauli). I regret not being competent enough to comment on the specific psychological expositions."
One sees that even philosophers have their difficulties in understanding the new view. One reason is the strange language used; but I do not know the "concept instruments of our great authors" in philosophy well enough as to even be able to decide whether they are at all sufficient to describe the model proposed here. The concept instruments of our great authors in visual science have, anyway, been proved insufficient to describe the ETVG.
In principle, it is the task of philosophy to create a general interdisciplinary language, i.e. concept instruments, that can be translated into the specific languages of the special sciences, that can in turn be translated into the general interdisciplinary language. The Three-Sphere, or Four-Manner, Four-Level Model of Reality provides some of these sought-after general concept instruments, as applied for the first time by the ETVG.
3. New insights into reality
If this model portrays reality well, we can possibly gain very important new insights into reality, at all four levels, based upon the symmetries shown. In modern physics, symmetry is thought to be a most important property of reality, and therefore also of global theories that claim to portray reality. When conceiving the trialistic, and quadrialistic, model of reality, I attached great importance on achieving symmetries. I even "tested" different possible partial models, and chose that with a greater symmetry in order to develop it further. Of course, in the end, the model proposed must be tested to discover if it is in agreement with facts. In the beginning, it is scientifically acceptable to test the model for its accordance with other "good" theories (like the ETVG, for example), or, at least, not in contradiction to them (like the relativity and quantum theories, or the biological evolution theory, for example).
a) The solution to the mind/matter problem
The "mind/matter problem" is designated in German "body/psyche (Leib/Seele) problem". One often reads also of the "matter/ consciousness problem"; these designations all mean the same. The problem lies in the incapability of scientists and philosophers to conceive a plausible concept of how the two "things" are connected with each other, although the existence of connections is accepted fact. There have been many attempts to solve the problem, but they all propose a belief, not a testable theory. The ETVG is the first attempt that proposes a plausible and testable theory of the connections between both "things" under consideration. If one views the problem from a trialistic or quadrialistic point of view, then one can see it in a more differentiated form, which is not possible from the dualistic point of view. If one accepts the ETVG, and reads traditionally dualistic expositions on the problem from a trialistic (quadrialistic) point of view, as shown above, one realizes the existence of great confusion: very different things are usually identified with each other, matter with body, psyche with consciousness, and consciousness, or psyche, with mind. According to the trialistic/quadrialistic model of reality, the five terms mean five quite different things: matter (UCM+VM) and consciousness (PC+MC) are two different spheres (or manners) of being, but body (VM+VF), psyche (PF+PC), and mind (MC+MO) are three different evolutionary levels. Fig.10-7 shows the clearly defined relationships between these five "things", by which the mind/matter - body/psyche - or matter/consciousness problem is principally solved; it is a pseudo- problem as it is founded on a wrong model of reality.
Fig. 10-7 shows that in the domain of visual perception matter has an immediate "touch" neither to mind, nor to consciousness. But body and psyche are immediately connected with each other: the location where the uppermost physical function projects to the bottommost psychical function is the location "where the body ends, and the psyche begins". As body and psyche are evolutionary levels, they have the same general structure. This is expressed in the isomorphy of instinctive movement, which takes place in the body, and perception, which occurs in the psyche. I have already described the sameness of these structures in greater detail (Kleine-Horst 1961, p.146), and have concluded an anthropological theorem from it:
"Anthropogenesis consists in the progressive shift of the instinct-to- memory effect ratio in favor of memory".
b) Psychic and Mental Consciousness
Many scientists have not yet realized that there are two different sorts of consciousness: the one built upon the other. In our model, the lower-level sort is designated "psychic consciousness" (PC), the higher-level sort "mental consciousness" (MC). The ETVG deals only with psychic consciousness. Because of its high symmetry, there are "isomorphisms" in this model of reality, and thus in the ETVG: symmetry refers to both the (evolutionary) levels and the spheres/manners of being. All spheres/manners have a certain common structure, i.e. they are "isomorphic". All evolutionary levels have a certain common structure as well, which is, however, different from that of the spheres. Thus, the ETVG agrees with both the Element theory and Berlin gestalt theory in establishing "isomorphism". The three theories differ, however, in the sort of isomorphism, i.e. in the structures that are considered "isomorphic" (see Chapter II).
Using the isomorphisms stated in our model of reality, we can make statements about an unknown "world" (i.e. the intersection of level and sphere/manner). Thus I shall make statements on the world of "Mental Consciousness": MC is founded on perceptual conscious- ness. Perceptual consciousness, i.e. "perceiving" at the psychic level, consists in being aware of the "outside world". The ETVG describes, restricted to the visual domain, only this sort of experiencing. Reflexive experiencing of Mental Consciousness is experiencing the "inside world", it is experiencing experience itself, perceptual experience, for example. As a concrete example: at the psychic level, one can experience "closedness"; one cannot experience it, however, as an isolated quality, but only within a phenomenal whole, as a "closed figure", "closed line", or "closed field", for example. At the mental level, one can also experience these experiences as wholes, but one can, additionally, experience the single qualities, which make up the wholes. Thus, the quality "closedness" is experienceable regardless of the "thing" that is closed. Furthermore, we can psych ically experience a "line" as a whole; and we can mentally experience this experience: by dividing the line into single "pointlike inhomogeneities", from which the line is composed by arranging the inhomogeneities in a row, and so on. The mental activity that manages these experiences is usually called "analysis", i.e. the separation of a whole into its component parts. "Parts" in this sense are not only those like the four "lines" of an outline oblong, but also the relationships between these lines, the "rectangularity" and the "length differences" between the two "parallel" lines, and also the "straightness" of each line. Besides the holistic psychic experience of a disk, for example, the whole "moon in the sky", we mentally experience the single qualities of the whole: "closedness", "borderline", "field", "inhomogeneity", "brightness", "darkness" and so on, and in the case of psychically experiencing the whole "square", we mentally experience its single qualities: straightness, rectangularity, parallelism, fourness, also closedness, infield and so on. We can designate the psychic experience "first-order experience", and the mental experience "second-order experience". We can, of course, assume a "third-order experience", that comes into being when we experience a second-order experience. (The relationship of the differences in regards to the order-level was already mentioned in explaining complex psychic experience, see Part 6). The usual term for the first-order experience (of objects) is "perception", that of the second- and higher-order experience is "cognition". "Analysis" in the sense explained was one of the mental acts by means of which I separated a visual whole, the experience "a bird flying from tree to tree", for example, into its component parts: the 25 phenomenal qualities (and its functional conditions), as shown in Fig. 7-1, and explained in detail in this book.
In a narrow sense, as understood in the ETVG, "psychology" refers only to the psychic level, i.e. to the phenomenal perception and its immediate functional conditions, and does not include, for example, the process of thought, because this occurs at the mental level. If one wishes to designate a science that treats psychic consciousness as well as mental consciousness, one must choose the term "phenomenology" (a use of the terminology that Husserl would have objected to).
The ETVG describes the basic hierarchy of visual gestalt factors. This hierarchy can often be actualized, by one and the same sensory stimulus. This leads to a complex percept of the order-level complexity type. At least the first actualization of the ten-level hierarchy seems to be a "pre-attentive" process. I am not able to determine the conditions that lead to an "attentive" visual process. These conditions will be established, at least, in the case involving mental consciousness. I do not really know, however, what is meant with "attentive" and "pre-attentive". Attention is needed in every case of perception. If I were to intuitively make a statement, then I would feel, that "attentive" refers to the "voluntary attention" at the mental level, and "pre-attentive" refers to the "involuntary (or reflexive) attention", which is the kind of attention that occurs at the psychic level. One of the most important deficits in psychological theories is the failure to precisely distinguish between psychic and mental acts, the latter being founded on the first, whereby the psychic acts are, to a certain extent, "integrated" in the mental acts.
c) Where the axioms of logic, arithmetic, and geometry come from
Up to and including approx. six or seven figures can be "pre- attentively" experienced as a certain number of figures. Twelve figures can, already at the psychic level, be experienced as a larger quantity than seven figures, but cannot immediately be experienced as the particular number of twelve figures. "Quantity" as an experienced "object" of its own, apart from being holistically involved in a percept as "fourness of squares", for example, is thus only possible at the mental evolutionary level. Here, it is also possible to experience relationships as relationships; one can experience the "quantitative" relationship between "three" and "four" squares, for example, i.e. one can realize, that "four" is "one more than three" of whatever things are seen in this number, and that "three" is "one less than four".
In this way, i.e. by "counting", one obtains a series of numbers, where two adjacent numbers differ by one. When starting from the number one, by always adding "one" to the previous number, the result is a row of numbers that is called in mathematics, the "row of natural positive whole numbers", which is subject to the "classical number theory". One of the mathematicians' problems is still not knowing where these natural whole numbers come from. Some believe, "God made them", and leave the numbers thus far from being analyzed by the human mind; others believe, that they are the work of man, and part of mathematical logic. According to the Four-Manner Four-Level Model of Reality, they are made by the mind, i.e. by mental consciousness, but are founded in our psychic perceptual system. It follows that the quantity factor, at the sixth level of visual gestalt factors, represents the axiomatic basis of arithmetic. If one reverses the procedure mentioned above, by subtracting "one" from the previous number, the "row of natural (positive and negative) whole numbers" results, which even includes a strange thing: a "zero", which is an essential term within the complete row of whole numbers, without, however, being a number itself, as it does not represent a real quantity. The mental capability of subtracting may be, along with addition, immediately founded on the perceptual quantity factor. But the concept of "zero" cannot be immediately founded on any perceptual factor, as perception concerns "existing" and not "non-existing" objects.
Similarly, geometry is also a system created at the mental evolutionary level, but its axioms are established at the psychic evolutionary level. Mathematicians know of the existence of such axioms, but do not know where they come from. Our model can help: the axioms of geometry can be found in the visual system, here in the orientation and form qualities, created by their specific gestalt factors, i.e. the coordinate factors at the seventh to tenth visual hierarchy levels, particularly the geometric gestalt factors "elongatedness/ extendedness" (E), "straightness" (S), "measurement equality" (M), and "rectangularity / parallelism" (R).
Philosophers have a further problem: they do not know where the axioms of logic come from. They know these axioms: "Something is either A or non-A, tertium non datur". But they do not know why this is so. The ETVG does: it comes from perceptual organization, where the following relationship is established: "Something perceived is either a figure or a non-figure (i.e. the figure's outfield);tertium non datur". Thus, the ETVG fifth-level gestalt qualities of F (F+ and F-) provide the axioms for "logical thinking" (in MC) and "logical order" (in MO).
In short, logical, arithmetical, and geometrical thinking take place, indeed, at the mental level, in the world of mental consciousness. These thought processes, however, are founded on the lower evolutionary level: the psychic, the perceptual, level, in the world of psychic consciousness, which in turn is created by the respective psychic functions. These relationships between logic, arithmetic, and geometry on one hand, and their axioms on the other, have been described elsewhere in greater detail (Kleine-Horst 1961, 1992a).
d) From Mental Consciousness (MC) to Mental Order (MO)
According to the four-manner four-level model, the entities at an evolutionary level can change their left-hand manner into the right-hand manner. This means in the case of mental level, that the same entities are expressed in both the phenomenal manner and the order manner. In the phenomenal manner, when an individual is thinking of and conceiving a system, be it logical, geometrical or legal, or a sophisticated number theory, or only a simple empiristic theory of visual gestalt perception, for example, this thinking needs time, which is available for mental consciousness processes. At this evolutionary level, time as the lowest-level entity of the three material entities (time, space, and energy/mass) is the last entity to "disappear": pure, i.e. "timeless", mental order remains, independent from any actual thought of an individual: as logical, geometrical, legal, number order, for example, or the hierarchical order of visual gestalt factors, or even the four-manner four-level superorder which comprises these sorts of orders.
The mental order of one individual can be "recognized" and adopted by another individual. This "adopting" is a learning process, either an explicit learning process as in the case of learning arithmetics in school, or an implicit learning process, for example, when a child grows into the social order of its "society", predomi- nantly mediated by the habitual behavior of its parents, which is similar to the implicit learning process in the case of forming the visual gestalt factors in early infancy.
e) From Mental Order (MO) to Individual Cosmic Matter (ICM)
The primary MC hierarchy is an evolutionary process using time, but its dependent correlate, the secondary MO hierarchy, is its timeless result. Let us designate the activity of Mental Consciousness as "thinking", and its results as "thoughts". MC can both think (i.e. recognize) the relationships between perceptual qualities, as proved by forming the ETVG, and think the relationships between thoughts, i.e. re-think its thinking. In both cases it shows its essential property, the reflexivity of mental consciousness.
In the case of MO, there are no limitations, neither a limitation by energy/mass, nor by space, nor by time. It follows: MO is an unlimited, infinite unity of all thoughts of all individuals. MO is thus a world beyond that of the individual. At the mental level, every individual can, in fact, immediately think the thoughts of every other individual. This process is known as "telepathy" (and is not only related to thoughts but to all sorts of experiences that can be reflexively experienced). If there are restrictions, then such that are generally valid for the thinking of any individual: one needs a certain intelligence, a certain amount of attention paid to the object of thinking, a certain store of thoughts from which one can proceed to other thoughts, and so forth. "Clairvoyance", too, is possible as the reflexive experiences in MC. This concept shall here not be pursued further.
As the Mental Order has the same structure (freedom from limitations by energy/mass, space, and time) as the "Universal Cosmic Order", it can be easily thought of as an individuation of the latter. It is thus thinkable that the activity of an individual MC can, via its dependent correlate, the MO (which is nothing else than "MC minus time limitation") influence the structure of the UCO, and via the UCO consequently influence also the dependent correlate of UCO, the Universal Cosmic Matter (UCM), as matter is the same entity as order, only in a different manner. If this influence is possible, both voluntary movements and telekinesis would be nearer to being accounted for. The parts of UCO and UCM that are individualized can be designated "Individual Cosmic Order" (ICO) and "Individual Cosmic Matter" (ICM), respectively. As an example for the difference between Universal and Individual Cosmic Matter: every material connection between visual neurons is Universal Cosmic Matter. But insofar as a material connection between visual neurons is based on the implicitly acquired memory contents of visual functions, it is (also) Individual Cosmic Matter, i.e. it is an individuation of UCM. Such material connections can be formed by the backward influence of functions on matter, and is predicted by this model, where it is indicated by the left-pointing arrow going from the uppermost VF to the uppermost VM. This source of connections was found by neurobiologists to be formed through the use of visual functions in infants.