Response

I want to respond to a point in the comment below. I want to do this before I post a few lined on Bateson's concept of the double-bind.
I previously wrote that the swirl caused a cognitive breakdown, and Ken disagrees. His point is that irrespective of the pain and psychic devastation wrought by a swirl, the observing ego carries on as usual. That's to say there is no breakdown of that. Accepted.
But, and yes I think there is a but. I goes like this. The swirl is disruptive and a disrupter. It is doing something and initiates a change. So in the move from normalcy to the swirl, something happens that is sudden and I am not sure what in that movement the ego discerns except for what seems like a change in state. So there may be some clarity in the before and after but maybe not at the point of change except for the felt fact of change.