From Perception to Awareness: Harnessing the Four Capacities of Mental Thriving

HARNESSING THE FOUR CAPACITIES 1 From Perception to Awareness: Harnessing the Four Capacities of Mental Thriving David Matta American University of Beirut Lebanese Mindfulness Association https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17986341 Author Note Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to David Matta, Dm6[email protected], American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon. HARNESSING THE FOUR CAPACITIES 2 Abstract Contemporary approaches to mental health predominantly focus on emotional regulation, cognitive restructuring, or behavioral control. While effective in many contexts, such models often overlook a more fundamental dimension of psychological functioning: how experience is first perceived and subsequently organized into meaning, action, and identity. This paper advances a capacity-based framework for mental health, thriving, and flourishing grounded in the M⁵ (Mindfulness to the Power Five) model (Matta, 2024), which articulates five interrelated levels of human functioning: perception, affect, cognition, action, and awareness. Mental wellbeing is defined not merely by the absence of distress, but by the dynamic availability of four core capacities operating across these levels: pacifying affective turbulence, increasing cognitive and embodied resources, regulating action and attitude in context, and transforming one's worldview through awareness-based reconfiguration. The paper argues that psychological suffering often originates at the level of perception—understood as prereflective structuring of experience that shapes salience and experiential affordances prior to cognitive appraisal—where experience becomes prematurely filtered, narrowed, or distorted. This understanding resonates with predictive processing accounts of cognition (Clark, 2013; Friston, 2010). Transformation is conceptualized as a higher-order function of awareness— understood not as an inner agent but as a relational and configurational capacity—restoring perceptual freshness, cognitive flexibility, and adaptive action. The paper provides preliminary operationalization pathways, addresses developmental and cultural considerations, and discusses applied implications for clinical practice, education, and organizational training. Mental thriving is defined functionally as capacity availability and perspective plasticity, explicitly rejecting teleological interpretations. The framework is presented as nested and recursive rather than stage-based, with bidirectional interactions across levels. By integrating perceptual, affective, cognitive, behavioral, and awareness-level processes, this model offers a HARNESSING THE FOUR CAPACITIES 3 non-reductionist account of mental well-being with implications for theory, research, and practice. Keywords: mental health, psychological flourishing, perception, meta-awareness, selfregulation, perspective transformation, mindfulness, M⁵ framework, systems psychology, predictive processing, operationalization HARNESSING THE FOUR CAPACITIES 4 From Perception to Awareness: Harnessing the Four Capacities of Mental Thriving Most contemporary accounts of mental health locate psychological difficulty at the level of emotion, cognition, or behavior. Anxiety is framed as dysregulated affect, depression as maladaptive cognition, and psychopathology more broadly as dysfunctional patterns of thought or action (Gross, 2015; Hayes et al., 2011). While these formulations capture important dimensions of lived experience, they often overlook a more fundamental level at which psychological suffering—and conversely, psychological thriving—first takes shape: perception. The present paper proposes a capacity-based reconceptualization of mental health, thriving, and flourishing grounded in the M⁵ framework (Matta, 2024), which integrates five nested levels of human functioning: perception, affect, cognition, action, and awareness. By distinguishing between pacifying, increasing, regulating, and transforming capacities, this framework clarifies why stabilization and self-regulation, while essential, are often insufficient for sustained psychological thriving. This emphasis on perception resonates with recent developments in predictive processing accounts of cognition, which understand the mind as fundamentally engaged in generating and updating predictive models of the world (Clark, 2013; Friston, 2010). On such accounts, perception is not passive reception but active construction shaped by prior expectations. The M⁵ framework complements this perspective by articulating how rigid or narrow predictive models—perceptual frames—can constrain psychological functioning, and how awareness-based transformation can enable their revision. It is important to clarify at the outset that the present framework is conceptual and nonprescriptive. It does not propose diagnostic criteria or treatment protocols. Rather, it offers a theoretical lens for understanding why certain interventions may succeed or reach their limits. However, the paper also provides preliminary pathways for operationalization, addresses HARNESSING THE FOUR CAPACITIES 5 developmental and cultural considerations, and discusses applied implications—extensions that bridge conceptual analysis with empirical and practical concerns. Section 1: Perception as the Hidden Origin of Suffering and Thriving In the present framework, perception does not refer merely to sensory input or physiological sensation. Rather, it denotes the pre-reflective structuring of experience—the way the world is implicitly filtered, organized, and made salient prior to emotional appraisal, cognitive interpretation, or deliberate action (Merleau-Ponty, 1945/2012; Noë, 2004). Perception, in this sense, is not yet "thinking about" experience, but the manner in which experience appears at all. This understanding aligns with enactive and embodied approaches to cognition (Varela et al., 1991; Thompson, 2007) and with predictive processing frameworks that construe perception as the brain's "best guess" about the causes of sensory input (Clark, 2013; Hohwy, 2013). On such accounts, what we perceive is shaped by prior expectations, learned regularities, and contextual factors that operate largely below the threshold of reflective awareness. Perceptual narrowing can be understood as the rigidification of predictive models— an over-reliance on prior expectations that reduces sensitivity to disconfirming evidence (Friston, 2010). Perception is distinguished from cognitive appraisal along several dimensions. First, perception operates prior to explicit evaluation, shaping what appears salient before propositional content is formed. Second, perception structures the field of experience rather than its interpretation. Third, perceptual framing is largely implicit and pre-reflective, whereas cognitive appraisal typically involves accessible, revisable beliefs (Gallagher & Zahavi, 2012). 1.1 Perceptual Narrowing and Psychological Distress HARNESSING THE FOUR CAPACITIES 6 Psychological suffering often coincides with a narrowing of perception. Under stress, threat, or prolonged adversity, experience becomes selectively tuned toward particular features— danger, loss, failure—while alternative aspects recede from view. This narrowing precedes explicit belief formation. By the time maladaptive thoughts or intense emotions are identified, perception has already constrained the field of possible meanings and responses. From this perspective, many forms of psychological distress arise from rigid or impoverished perceptual frames rather than from faulty reasoning alone (Gross, 1998). Cognitive and emotional regulation may temporarily stabilize functioning within such frames, but they do not necessarily restore perceptual openness. 1.2 Perception in the M⁵ Framework Within the M⁵ framework (Matta, 2024), perception constitutes the first level of human functioning, followed by affect, cognition, action, and awareness. Crucially, these levels are not conceived as linear stages or a developmental hierarchy, but as nested and dynamically interacting processes. The framework is recursive rather than sequential: any level may become the focus of attention or intervention, and changes at one level reverberate through others. Bidirectional influences operate continuously—perception shapes affect, but affect also colors perception; awareness can reconfigure perception, but perceptual habits can obscure awareness. By making perception explicit, the M⁵ model addresses a gap in many psychological theories that focus primarily on emotional regulation or cognitive restructuring (Gross, 2015; Teasdale et al., 2002). 1.3 Perceptual Openness and Mental Thriving Mental thriving and flourishing are associated with perceptual flexibility—the capacity to encounter experience without excessive pre-filtering or premature closure (Ryff, 1989; Keyes, HARNESSING THE FOUR CAPACITIES 7 2002). Such flexibility allows multiple meanings, possibilities, and responses to remain available. However, perceptual openness cannot be sustained solely through effortful control. For this reason, enduring thriving requires access to awareness-level processes capable of reorganizing perception itself. 1.4 Conceptual Architecture of the M⁵ Framework Figure 1 presents the conceptual architecture of the M⁵ framework, illustrating the relationship between the five functional levels and the four capacities. The figure emphasizes bidirectional interactions: arrows indicate that each level influences and is influenced by adjacent levels, and that awareness encompasses all levels, enabling reconfiguration at any point. The framework is explicitly non-hierarchical in a normative sense; "higher" levels are not superior but represent different functional depths. Level Capacity Function Example Interactions AWARENESS Transforming Reconfigure perceptual-cognitive frames Recognizing "I am not my anxiety" ↕ All levels ACTION Regulating Govern behavior, speech, attitude Pausing before reacting in conflict ↕ Cognition, Awareness COGNITION Increasing Expand resources and skills Learning reappraisal strategies ↕ Affect, Action AFFECT Pacifying Soothe emotional turbulence Calming anxiety through breathing ↕ Perception, Cognition PERCEPTION (Foundational) Pre-reflective structuring of experience Seeing threat vs. seeing challenge ↕ Affect, Awareness Figure 1. Conceptual architecture of the M⁵ framework. The five functional levels are shown with primary capacities, functions, and concrete examples. The "Interactions" column indicates bidirectional influences (↕) between levels. Awareness encompasses all levels (depicted by its interaction with "All levels"). The framework is nested and recursive: changes at any level propagate throughout the system, and entry points for intervention are multiple. Section 2: Pacifying, Increasing, and Regulating—Necessary but Insufficient Capacities If perception provides the initial shaping of experience, then affect, cognition, and action represent the primary domains through which individuals attempt to stabilize, manage, and navigate that experience. Within the M⁵ framework, these efforts correspond to three essential but limited functions: pacifying, increasing, and regulating. HARNESSING THE FOUR CAPACITIES 8 Pacifying refers to the capacity to soothe emotional disturbance and restore affective equilibrium (Gross, 1998). Increasing refers to the cultivation of cognitive, attentional, and embodied resources (Kegan, 1982; Mezirow, 1991). Regulating refers to the modulation of behavior, speech, impulse, and stance (Gross, 2015). These capacities are necessary conditions for mental health, yet insufficient for mental thriving when operating in isolation from awareness-based transformation. When the perceptual–cognitive frame itself becomes the source of suffering—through rigidity or misinterpretation—regulation reaches its limits (Argyris & Schön, 1978). Section 3: Awareness and Transformation—Reconfiguring Perspective Transformation, as articulated here, denotes the capacity to reconfigure the worldview itself when it becomes rigid or misaligned with lived experience. This capacity is mediated by awareness and constitutes the deepest functional layer of mental thriving. 3.1 Awareness as a Meta-Capacity Within the M⁵ framework, awareness is understood as a meta-capacity: the ability of the system to take its own processes—perception, affect, cognition, and action—as objects of observation (Brown et al., 2007; Teasdale et al., 2002). Awareness differs from attention (selective focus) and from metacognition (reflective monitoring of cognitive processes; Flavell, 1979). It also differs from mindfulness as operationally defined in intervention protocols (Bishop et al., 2004). Awareness is a relational and configurational capacity that enables perspective reconfiguration. This understanding aligns with contemplative scholarship distinguishing attentional stability from the recognition of awareness itself (Dunne, 2011; Dreyfus, 2011). HARNESSING THE FOUR CAPACITIES 9 Crucially, awareness is not conceived as an inner agent or homunculus. Rather, it is a functional property of the system that enables reconfiguration by rendering implicit processes explicit. This is consistent with enactive approaches (Varela et al., 1991; Thompson, 2007). 3.2 Transformation Versus Regulation Regulation answers the question: How can I respond more skillfully within the way I already see things? Transformation addresses a deeper question: What if the way I am seeing things is itself the source of difficulty? Transformation does not replace regulation; it changes the conditions under which regulation occurs. Once a frame loosens or reorganizes, regulation often becomes simpler and less effortful. 3.3 Non-Linear and Recursive Dynamics Crucially, transformation is non-linear and discontinuous. It may arise gradually or suddenly. The M⁵ framework explicitly cautions against interpreting transformation as the final stage of a sequential process. Transformation can occur at any point; it does not require prior mastery of regulation. The framework is recursive, not developmental in the sense of fixed stages. Section 4: Mental Thriving and Flourishing—Definitions and Implications Mental thriving is defined in explicitly functional terms, not as a value-laden ideal. Thriving refers to capacity availability and perspective plasticity—the dynamic availability of capacities that support adaptive engagement with changing conditions. This definition explicitly rejects teleological or moralized interpretations. Thriving is not a destination, virtue, or state to be maintained. It is a functional property of a self-organizing system. Mental flourishing refers to the sustained availability of these capacities across time and context (Keyes, 2002; Ryff, 1989). Flourishing does not imply immunity from stress but HARNESSING THE FOUR CAPACITIES 16 References Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Addison-Wesley. Ashby, W. R. (1956). An introduction to cybernetics. Chapman & Hall. Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L. (2006). Using self-report assessment methods to explore facets of mindfulness. Assessment, 13(1), 27–45. Bishop, S. R., et al. (2004). Mindfulness: A proposed operational definition. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 11(3), 230–241. Brewer, J. A., et al. (2011). Meditation experience is associated with differences in default mode network activity and connectivity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(50), 20254–20259. Brown, K. W., Ryan, R. M., & Creswell, J. D. (2007). Mindfulness: Theoretical foundations and evidence for its salutary effects. Psychological Inquiry, 18(4), 211–237. Carstensen, L. L., et al. (2011). Emotional experience improves with age. Psychology and Aging, 26(1), 21–33. Casey, B. J., et al. (2008). The adolescent brain. Developmental Review, 28(1), 62–77. Clark, A. (2013). Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(3), 181–204. Dreyfus, G. (2011). Is mindfulness present-centred and non-judgmental? Contemporary Buddhism, 12(1), 41–54. Dunne, J. D. (2011). Toward an understanding of non-dual mindfulness. Contemporary Buddhism, 12(1), 71–88. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. HARNESSING THE FOUR CAPACITIES 17 Friston, K. (2010). The free-energy principle: A unified brain theory? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(2), 127–138. Gallagher, S., & Zahavi, D. (2012). The phenomenological mind (2nd ed.). Routledge. Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation. Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 271–299. Gross, J. J. (2015). Emotion regulation: Current status and future prospects. Psychological Inquiry, 26(1), 1–26. Hayes, S. C., et al. (2011). Open, aware, and active. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 7, 141–168. Hohwy, J. (2013). The predictive mind. Oxford University Press. Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self. Harvard University Press. Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. L. (2009). Immunity to change. Harvard Business Press. Keyes, C. L. M. (2002). The mental health continuum. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 43(2), 207–222. Levine, P. A. (2010). In an unspoken voice. North Atlantic Books. Lutz, A., et al. (2015). Investigating the phenomenological matrix of mindfulness-related practices. Current Opinion in Psychology, 2, 26–31. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253. Matta, D. (Daoud) . (2025). Mindfulness to the Power of Five (M⁵): A Phenomenological– Integrative Model of Mindfulness, Experience, and Awareness. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17986296 Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition. D. Reidel. McAdams, D. P. (2001). The psychology of life stories. Review of General Psychology, 5(2), 100–122. HARNESSING THE FOUR CAPACITIES 18 Merleau-Ponty, M. (2012). Phenomenology of perception (D. A. Landes, Trans.). Routledge. (Original work published 1945) Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. Jossey-Bass. Navon, D. (1977). Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception. Cognitive Psychology, 9(3), 353–383. Noë, A. (2004). Action in perception. MIT Press. Ogden, P., Minton, K., & Pain, C. (2006). Trauma and the body. Norton. Petitmengin, C. (2006). Describing one's subjective experience in the second person. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 5(3), 229–269. Roeser, R. W., & Peck, S. C. (2009). An education in awareness. Educational Psychologist, 44(2), 119–136. Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069–1081. Teasdale, J. D., et al. (2002). Metacognitive awareness and prevention of relapse in depression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70(2), 275–287. Thompson, E. (2007). Mind in life. Harvard University Press. van der Kolk, B. A. (2014). The body keeps the score. Viking. Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind. MIT Press. Wells, A. (2009). Metacognitive therapy for anxiety and depression. Guilford Press. HARNESSING THE FOUR CAPACITIES 19 Declarations Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Conflicts of Interest The author declares no conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, or publication of this article. Ethics Approval This article is a theoretical and conceptual contribution. No empirical data involving human or animal subjects were collected; therefore, ethics approval was not required. Data Availability No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study. This is a theoretical paper. Author Contributions David Matta is the sole author and was responsible for the conceptualization, theoretical development, writing, and revision of the manuscript. Use of Artificial Intelligence Writing Assistance The author acknowledges the use of large language model (LLM) artificial intelligence tools in the preparation of this manuscript. Specifically, the author used OpenAI's ChatGPT (GPT4) for initial conceptual exploration, dialogue-based refinement of theoretical ideas, and iterative development of the framework's structure. Anthropic's Claude was used for manuscript drafting, formatting, citation integration, and editorial refinement. These AI tools were employed as writing and thinking aids under the direct supervision and critical evaluation of the author. HARNESSING THE FOUR CAPACITIES 20 The author takes full responsibility for all intellectual content, theoretical claims, and arguments presented in this paper. All AI-generated outputs were critically reviewed, substantially revised, and integrated by the author. The use of AI assistance does not diminish the author's accountability for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of the work. The theoretical framework (M⁵), its conceptual architecture, and the core arguments are the original intellectual contributions of the author; AI tools served as assistants in articulation and refinement, not as sources of theoretical innovation. This disclosure is made in accordance with emerging guidelines on AI transparency in academic publishing (e.g., ICMJE, COPE, and journal-specific policies). The author supports transparency regarding AI use in scholarly work and encourages ongoing dialogue about appropriate acknowledgment practices as the field evolves. Acknowledgements The author wishes to thank colleagues at the American University of Beirut and the Lebanese Mindfulness Association for ongoing dialogue and support. The author is grateful to the developers of large language model technologies—including teams at OpenAI, Anthropic, and other organizations advancing AI research—whose tools have created new possibilities for scholarly inquiry and writing. The author also acknowledges the broader community of researchers in contemplative science, phenomenology, and clinical psychology whose work has informed this framework. Finally, the author expresses appreciation for the contemplative traditions—Buddhist, phenomenological, and otherwise—that have long understood the primacy of perception and awareness in human flourishing, and from which the M⁵ framework draws significant inspiration.