The Human Being as a Multilevel System

Everyday Examples of Stabilization

The simplest forms of stabilization are almost invisible.

A person puts his keys in the same place. This is not just convenience. It is a small external structure that reduces the chaos of the future morning. Memory does not have to search from zero each time. Space takes on part of the holding.

A person keeps a diary. Sometimes he thinks he is simply recording events. But often writing does more: it connects an experience that was too diffuse inside. While a feeling has not been named, it may occupy the whole field. After being written down, it becomes part of a story. It does not disappear, but it receives a form.

A person returns to a familiar place when he feels bad. A kitchen, a park, a road along the river, a work desk, an armchair by the window. The place does not solve the problem. But it helps experience gather again. The body recognizes the space, attention stops spending energy on uncertainty, memory returns a familiar line.

A person calls a friend and after the conversation says, "it has become clearer to me." The friend did not put a new entity into him. But the conversation helped connect scattered experiences. What was an anxious knot inside became a sequence: this is what happened, this is what frightened me, this is what matters to me, this is what can be done.

A person keeps to a ritual. Morning tea, a walk, the order of preparing for work, an evening note, a short silence before a difficult task. From outside, this may seem like a small thing. But rituals often hold continuity where an inner decision is not enough.

In all these cases, coherence does not come from one center. It is distributed between body, memory, objects, language, space, other people, and repetition.

And this is exactly what allows us to speak of the human being as a multilevel system.

We can add several more tense examples.

After a difficult conversation, a person walks home, although he could have taken transport. He does not "solve the problem" by walking. But step, breath, streets, and the repeated rhythm of movement gradually return experience from chaotic agitation into a more coherent form. Thought stops jumping, the body lowers tension, the words of the conversation become less sharp. Walking here is not just a physical action. It takes part in stabilization.

Another person, before an important decision, lays papers out on the table. Lists, schemes, notes, dates, names. Inside, everything seems too tangled. But when the elements are placed outside, it becomes possible to see connections. Paper does not think instead of the person. But it helps the system of experience hold more than inner memory alone could hold.

A third person returns to an old photograph and unexpectedly understands why the present situation hurt him so much. The photograph is not the cause of understanding. But it connects the present feeling with a past layer of experience. What was torn apart receives a line. Sometimes an external object becomes the point through which experience connects itself again.

A fourth person repeats the same phrase: "I need time." At first it sounds like a defense. Then like a request. Then like an acknowledgement of a boundary. Language here does not merely report a state to another person. It creates a form in which the person himself begins to hold his state differently.

Such examples show that stabilization does not always look like strong will or a clear decision. Often it happens through small forms of coherence.

Objection: If There Is No Center, Who Makes Decisions?

Here an objection appears that cannot be bypassed:

"If there is no center, who makes decisions?"

This is one of the strongest questions. Because without an answer to it, the model may look like an escape from the obvious. We really do choose. We sign a contract, leave or stay, tell the truth or remain silent, begin treatment, change work, answer a message, admit a mistake. We cannot simply say that decisions "happen," as if the person disappears.

But the question can be made more exact.

Perhaps a decision is not always an order from the center.

Perhaps a decision is the moment when several levels of experience gather into action.

Sometimes a decision matures for a long time. A person says for years that he is not ready, and then one day takes a step. From outside it seems: he suddenly decided. But inside, meaning, fear, memory, the image of the future, support from others, and tiredness from the old form may have been reconfiguring for a long time. The day of decision turns out to be not the beginning, but the visible point of assembly.

Sometimes a decision is made quickly. But even then it may rely on already formed patterns. The experience of a doctor, driver, teacher, parent, or musician makes it possible to act almost instantly. Not because a small center calculated the options faster than everyone else, but because the system has already learned to recognize the situation and gather a response.

Sometimes a decision is conflicted. A person chooses, but part of him continues to resist. This does not mean that the decision is unreal. It means that coherence is incomplete. One line of experience has become strong enough for action, but other lines have not disappeared.

In this way we can preserve the reality of choice without introducing a hidden manager.

The decision remains human.

But it is understood not as the command of an essence, but as an event of coordination.

Here one more objection appears:

"But if a decision is an event of coordination, does freedom disappear?"

This objection is understandable. If choice stops being an order from an inner center, it seems to become the mechanical result of processes. But this is too poor an understanding of process. Not every process is mechanical. Conversation is a process, but it can be free. Understanding is a process, but it can open new possibilities. Learning is a process, but through it a person changes what once seemed inevitable.

Freedom does not disappear in such a model. It changes place.

It is located not in a hidden point that is miraculously independent of everything, but in the system's ability to reconfigure its ways of coordination. A person becomes freer not when he separates himself from memory, body, language, and relationships, but when he can work with them differently: notice old reactions, name them, create new supports, change the environment, ask for support, hold another meaning, endure a pause.

Freedom turns out to be not the opposite of the system, but the possibility of its reconfiguration.

A Limitation of the Concept

Now we need to stop and acknowledge a risk.

The word "stabilization" may become too broad.

If we call everything that somehow holds experience stabilization, the term will lose precision. It will begin to explain too much, and therefore will stop explaining anything specific. Any habit, any feeling, any thought, any object, any conversation will become stabilization. This will make the model convenient, but weak.

So boundaries are needed from the start.

In this book, stabilization means not every repetition and not every stability.

Stabilization is maintaining the coherence of experience between changing elements.

If a person simply repeats an action automatically, this is not necessarily stabilization in the strong sense. We need to ask: what does this repetition hold? Does it reduce anxiety? Support an image of oneself? Preserve a connection? Close a question? Prevent the collapse of meaning? If it holds no coherence, it is better not to use the word "stabilization."

If a person keeps a habit, this also is not always stabilization. A habit may be the remainder of an old structure that no longer helps, but only reproduces itself. It may once have stabilized experience, but later become a source of fragmentation.

If a person feels calm, this is not always a sign of good stabilization. Sometimes calm arises from avoidance. Experience seems coherent only because an important part has been excluded from attention.

So stabilization cannot be evaluated only by the feeling of comfort.

It must be considered by its function: does it hold the coherence of experience, and at what cost?

This limitation protects the model from blurring.

There is one more limitation.

Not every stabilization is desirable.

A person can stabilize experience through avoidance. Not think about what matters, not open a letter, not tell the truth, not meet the person who reminds him of pain. In the short term, this really does hold coherence: anxiety decreases, the day continues, the familiar form of self is preserved. But later such stabilization may narrow life and deepen the inner split.

A person can stabilize experience through the role of the suffering one. As long as he remains in this role, the world is understandable: I am the one who was unlucky, who was not understood, who was hurt. Such a story can hold coherence, but at the same time close the possibility of a new action.

A person can stabilize himself through control. Everything must be predictable, people must behave as expected, plans must not change. This gives a feeling of safety, but makes the system fragile: any deviation is perceived as a threat.

So the question is not only whether experience is stabilized.

The question is at what cost it is stabilized.

The model must not turn stabilization into a good. Stabilization is a function. It can support life, and it can hold a person in a form that has already become too narrow.

The First Central Formula

Now the central formula can be spoken not as a slogan, but as the result of reasoning:

the human being is

not a fixed essence,

but a multilevel system for stabilizing experience.

Every word matters in this formula.

"Not a fixed essence" means: we do not begin with the assumption of an inner unchanging center.

"Multilevel" means: experience is held not by one mechanism, but by the interaction of body, memory, attention, language, meaning, habits, relationships, and external structures.

"System" means: we are speaking about relations between processes, not about a set of separate parts.

"Stabilization" means: the human being maintains the coherence of changes, not immobility.

"Experience" means: we are speaking about how experiencing becomes coherent, continuing, and able to be recognized as "mine."

This formula does not cancel personality, responsibility, freedom, or inner life. It only suggests that we should not look for them in a hidden essence. It suggests looking at the processes through which they become possible.

But as soon as this formula appears, a new question arises.

If the human being is not given as a ready-made essence, but is assembled through processes of stabilization, then what is personality?

How does the feeling of constancy arise?

Why can a person say: this is my story?

How do memory, language, and other people take part in the assembly of the one we call ourselves?

This question opens the next chapter.

How Does Personality Arise?

4. How Personality Arises

Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.

Текст предоставлен ООО «Литрес».

Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на Литрес.

Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.