The consciousness in front of the world tends to compensate it structurally by means of a complex system of responses. Some responses reach the objectal world directly (expressed through the centers), but others remain in the consciousness and reach the world indirectly through some manifestation of behavior. These compensations of the consciousness tend to balance the internal world with respect to the external one. Such connection is established according to exigencies, with the individual finding herself pressed to respond to a complex world that is natural, human, social, cultural, technical, and so on. The “reverie nucleus” arises as an important compensatory response, and the “secondary reveries” as specific responses to the exigencies.
Reveries can be visualized as images; not so the nucleus, which is perceived as an allusive climate” as it is configured over time, increasing its power to direct a person’s tendencies, their personal aspirations. In the stage when the reverie nucleus is wearing out, when it ceases to direct the psychism, the forms and images that it had adopted can be observed. For this reason the nucleus is easier to register at the beginning as well as at the end of its process, but not in its middle stage, which is when it most strongly directs the psychic activity. The paradox arises that the human being is unable to perceive what most determines its behavior, since the nucleus works as a background that responds in a totalizing way to the multiple demands of daily life.
The reverie nucleus” rules the aspirations, ideals and illusions that change in each vital stage. Following these changes or variations in the nucleus, existence is oriented in other directions and, concomitantly, changes in personality are produced. This nucleus wears out individually, in the same way that epochal reveries that have directed the activities of a whole society wear out. Whereas on one hand the nucleus gives a general response to the environment’s demands, on the other it compensates the personality’s basic deficiencies and lacks, imprinting a certain direction on the behavior. This direction can be weighted depending on whether or not it follows the line of growing adaptation. The reveries and nucleus imprint their powers of suggestion over the consciousness, producing the characteristic blocking of criticism and self-criticism proper to the infravigilic levels. For this reason, any direct confrontation with or opposition to the suggestion of the reverie nucleus” is useless, as it simply ends up reinforcing the compulsion. The possibility of producing a change of direction in an evolutionary line lies in making gradual modifications. The nucleus can regress or become fixed. In the first case, the psychism returns to previous stages, increasing the discords between processes and the situation in the environment. In the second case, when the nucleus becomes fixed, the individual is progressively disconnected from his environment, producing a behavior that does not adjust to the dynamic of events.
The reverie” nucleus launches the human being in the pursuit of mirages, which, when they are not realized, produce painful states (dis-illusions), while partial fulfillments produce pleasurable situations. We thus discover that the reveries and their nucleus lie at the root of psychological suffering. It is in the great failures—when expectations collapse and mirages fade—when the possibility arises for a new direction in life. In such a situation the “knot of pain” is exposed—the biographical knot that the consciousness suffered from for so long.
The systems of response (there are no isolated responses) go about organizing a personality, a mediator with the environment, which articulates different roles as codified systems of response in order to improve its dynamic.
The personality fulfills a precise function: it searches for the least resistance in the environment. This organization of roles that offer less difficulty in the relationship with the environment grows codified on the basis of learning through trial and error. The accumulation of behavior organizes a system of roles linked to situations, wherein some roles appear while others are hidden. This particular case is quite illustrative as a system of adaptation. In time, what we can call “circles of personality” are organized in different layers of depth. These circles are articulated according to the instructions of the reveries and the environments most frequented. Now then, in this interplay of roles that try to offer the least resistance to the environment, the roles may or may not be adjusted to a conventional, accepted consensus and give typical or atypical responses, respectively. Typical responses are not only codified by the individual but also by broad social groups, such that when a response arises in these groups that differs from the customary one, it can be disconcerting. This can occur above all in new situations for which there is no codified response. The response given in these situations can ultimately be opportune, or inopportune. Thus atypical responses appear that do not fit the situation, and the degree of inadequacy that they manifest can be weighted. Typical responses, though they can be adequate in an environment that is stable and relatively unchanging, are not such in a changing environment whose dynamic modifies customs, values, and so on. On occasion, the typicalness of the responses is an obstacle for adaptation to change. There are other, atypical manifestations that act as a catharsis of tensions, or that manifest negative emotions in the form of a catharsis of climates. Both of these atypical responses surface as a result of pressure from internal impulses that are expressed in situations with which the tensions do not necessarily coincide. In this case, the tensions and climates act as situational noise that abruptly bursts into the environment.
From the point of view of growing adaptation, the types of behavior that are of interest are those that offer multiple options of response, which is a situation that can enable an energy savings, usable for new steps of adaptation. Therefore, there will be responses of growing adaptation; but there will also be responses of decreasing adaptation, and this will happen as much in the case of atypical responses as in typical ones, with their differing degrees of timeliness. Thus, a particular behavior can either fulfill or not fulfill an adaptative function.
We can evaluate changes in behavior as significant or circumstantial. A change will be significant if the new orientation goes toward the evolutionary line, and it will be circumstantial if there is merely a replacement of roles, of ideology, an expansion of the circles of personality, an apex or a decline in the reveries, and so on. None of these last are indicative of an internal change. of importance. From a more general point of view, there is a significant change of behavior when a psychic instance is exhausted because the contents that were valid in one instance (with their characteristic theme and discourse) were progressively worn out until they were finally depleted. The psychism then orients itself toward a new instance, as an articulated response in its relation to the world.
The behavior is an indicator of the changes that are of interest. Many decisions to change, or plans for change, remain locked up in the psychism and for this reason do not indicate any modification; whereas when they are expressed in real changes in behavior, it is because some modification has taken place in the consciousness-world structure.