(To understand this blog you’ll want to begin at the beginning: HOME – Post 1, June 14, 2015). (glossary: N = Now, D = Demiourgos (God), C = Consciousness, Q = Incipient consciousness occurring at N,W = World State, t =- past)
There are cues that inform us that there is a physical substratum to the social world: Johnson’s ‘stone,’ was indeed such. He was right, insofar as his consciousness encountered physicalia; a baby waving his little hands in the air, proximate to a bright, shiny toy, dangling above her bassinette or similarly an older woman shopping for a new guitar and choosing to buy a pinkly-lacquered, shiny model with a heart-shaped sound hold over one with a more mellow resonance and a decidedly better fingerboard action – a pike in the weeds going for a bright, wiggly daredevil soon while a fat minnow cruised blithely by just under his snoot.
Conceptia are a garden of snakes slithering with bright, shiny errors – not in what they are themselves, but in what they are believed to represent. Perceptia, on the other hand, are what they are – things that are elements of knowing, for Q at N. Q picks them up like dandruff from the brain and then begins the slow, ponderous job of selecting, fitting, judging, categorizing and working categories into concepts while at the same time, calling up the changes in body-states at N that will reflect the reverse translation: knowing or awareness into inert stuff in neural configurations that will later be recalled memory.
It has been the proposal in this enquiry that C as Q at N does not evolve from chemical changes in matter itself. Matter is inert and therefore cannot act nor act upon itself. Rather both W state change and Q are given at N. Further, it is suggested (as discussed above), that Q is residual intentionality purposely resident in particular – that is localized – form, of the intentionality purposely resident in particular – that is localized – form, of the intentional force that overcomes the impossibility of void to present time and existence.
Now, the question may be reasonably asked, “Why, then, in all the vastness of existence at least as we have been able to discern, there doesn’t appear to be any evidence of Q anywhere other than this little speck of dirt we live on?”
W is presented at N by D as an intentional act. Intentionality is conscious activity. C in existence is an act Q at N which shares this property of action at N with D. Therefore though C is in W, it is not of W, which is expressed as a state of inert, extended matter at N. C which is an act at N must be what Aristotle and the medieval called, ‘of the same substance’ as D. But since C is in W, it must conform to the logos of W and occupy place.
But since it is an act and not a thing, ie, stuff, it is not extended and therefore does not displace matter. Consciousness must be intentional or it would be devoid of selective understanding which implies freedom of intentionality in the judgment of perceptia or conceptia. Therefore will is free in conscious logi or living bodies. But all existence is presented by – D through void. Therefore, all states of matter at N including the brain and body are inert presentations at N. Therefore, C must be in communion with D in order to achieve bodily movement. In the case of technology, extend its intentionality beyond its body.
If C is in communion with D, it, in a sense, saying that D is in communion with parts of itself that will a great diversity of actions.
The term, ‘God,’ is loaded with historical, cultural, theological implications across the multitudes that infest this tiny planet. Human consciousness seems even in this brave new world of engineering artificial intelligence to genetic restructuring of biological capabilities possibly assisted by electro-mechanical constructs, to have a sense of limitation, which brings along with it an equivalent sense of the spookiness of reality. Just a sense; a sense that grows weaker as the social world continues to gather strength.
The Demiourgos doesn’t just produce flowers, trees, mountains, rivers, planets, suns, galaxies and all the seventeenth to twentieth century apparatus of awe, wonder and faith, D also at N presents quantum states that, in the succession of states appear to be processes of motion and force which can, due to the consistency and minuteness of all existence as they are presented at N, can be quantified and in most cases, predicted and demonstrated to cohere with adjunct theories in a network.
Such a shift from the early medieval conceptualization of nature as the will of a telelogically-minded creator, through the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries and the restless alchemical search for the underlying substance of things, to the dawning in the sixteenth century, maybe earlier, of the fearless idea that maybe nature just runs itself. That process happens when chemical circumstances of time and place are just right.
There are maybe many substances that do not necessarily rely on the mind of God. The ‘unified field theory,’ becomes the new philosopher’s stone. The immediate sense is that whatever presents the moment of N and almost incidentally existence along with it, has got to be God, the father almighty, creator of heaven and of earth.
Nothing in existence can cause any change within existence, which is created out of or through void at N as a motionless state. This act is an intended act, as existence cannot pre-exist itself in order to create itself. The only cause is that which brings the state of existence about. Within existence, the only acts in the otherwise inert condition of being, are the acts of consciousness.
Consciousness is an act of both recognition of the logos of being and intention to preserve its self as a point of knower and known. Because consciousness is intentional and because it is not inert but an action at N – both significant attributes shared with whatever creates time and existence, it is rational to assume both share the same substance.
But consciousness, unlike D, the acting principle in the creation of time and existence, although it is not extended or inert as physicalia is and therefore, not stuff or matter – cannot be causative. This is because at N, cause would be change of the inert state of existence that obtains at N. Only D, a principle that acts from both void and existence (both subject to the act of creation), can create a new existence and therefore, effect change.
So although it seems that C is a causative agent within existence, it is not. But that seeming, issues from the fact that when C wills its body to behave in a certain way, it is, given limiting physical circumstances, usually successful: it looks like C can wave her hand, wiggle her toes, cross her eyes at will. But it is really state-change and only D does that. So there is, apparently, a relationship between D and C that is occluded to us.
But we do, it would seem from the essential attributes of act at N and locum in place but not extension plus and most importantly, the capability of somehow influencing state-change in this locale, ie our bodies, bear a kinship of substance with the cause of existence. Not only can C influence the action of its own body, but it can influence action at a distance, from driving a nail into a board to sending an email anywhere on the planet.
The slow growth – or perhaps speedy, depending on how history and pre-history are viewed – of conceptia of technology, has created a belief that reality is solely material and mechanical in nature and pretty well completely capable of being manipulated by mankind. Would the God of the Old Testament allow such hubris? Recall the Tower of Babel.
If the conclusions reached, however tentatively, in this enquiry are correct, we can only assume that D not only allows the reality of the social world to grow apace, but must, because of its demonstrated omnipotence – an omnipotence thoroughly ignored – be complicit in the state changes that support mankind’s flawed outlook.
Jaweh of the Old Testament, insisted that his prophets and his people, understood his superiority, his power to command storm, flood and drought. Not so, D. Whatever D is. It is not the biblical father, loving or wrathful.
More to follow of this investigation of time and existence