reconsolidation - TOWARDS LIFE-KNOWLEDGE

Across biological, psychological, and civilizational domains, chronic suffering is increasing despite expanding knowledge and intervention capacity. This paper proposes that many forms of chronic disease, trauma, and systemic fragility are best understood not as isolated pathologies but as the cumulative cost of remaining viable under sustained constraint.

Using a cross-scale viability framework, the work reframes inflammation, rigidity, and loss of future orientation as budgetary phenomena. Living systems operate under finite margins of energy, repair, and optionality. When environmental, metabolic, and psychosocial demands persistently exceed replenishment capacity, systems adapt defensively. These adaptations are encoded as implicit memory — set-point drift, inflammatory tone, autonomic vigilance, and behavioral narrowing.

Trauma is redefined as the forced liquidation of optionality under sustained load. Healing, correspondingly, is not symptom suppression but margin restoration sufficient to permit safe recalibration. The framework integrates physiology, neuroscience of implicit memory and reconsolidation, and systems theory to demonstrate that constraint violations produce predictable biological and structural consequences across scale.

The paper does not offer a universal cure. It offers an accounting: when survival becomes expensive, cost will be internalized unless conditions change. Making this arithmetic visible is a prerequisite for sustainable healing and redesign.

This is a revision of Freud’s “Project for a Scientiﬁc Psychology: General Scheme.” It updates the original, sentence for sentence where possible, in light of contemporary neuroscientiﬁc knowledge. The principle revisions are as follows. (1) Freud’s conception of “quantity” (the precursor of “drive energy”) is replaced by the concept of “free energy.” This is the energy within a system that is not currently performing useful work. (2) Shannon’s conception of “information” is introduced, where information is equivalent to unpredictability, and is formally equivalent to “entropy” in physics. (3) In biology, the fundamental purpose of “homeostasis” is to resist entropy – i.e., to increase predictability. Homeostasis turns out to be the underlying mechanism of what Freud called the “principle of neuronal inertia.” (4) Freud’s conception of “contact barriers” (the physical vehicles of memory) is linked with the modern concepts of consolidation/reconsolidation, whereby more deeply consolidated predictions are less plastic (more resistant to change) than freshly consolidated ones. (5) Freud’s notion of sensory “excitation” is replaced with the concept of “prediction error,” where only that portion of sensory input which is not explained by outgoing predictions is propagated inwards for cognitive processing. (6) Freud’s conception of “bound” (inhibited) cathexis, the main vehicle of his “secondary process” and voluntary action is equated with the buﬀering function of “working memory”; and “freely mobile” cathexis (the vehicle of Freud’s “primary process”) is equated with the automatized response modes of the nondeclarative memory systems. (7) Freud’s notion of ω (the system “consciousness”) is replaced by the concept of “precision” modulation, also known as “arousal” and “postsynaptic gain.”