Oct 14(To understand this blog you’ll want to begin at the beginning: HOME – Post 1, June 14, 2015). Short glossary: N = Now, D = Demiourgos (God) C = Consciousness Q = Incipient consciousness occurring at N W = World State
As elemental units of WILL or intent, Q as recognizer of the logos and in virtue of its knowledge OF the logos, would then, over successive N, make it possible to translate this knowledge into the beginnings of understanding. This is, of course, in combination with memory and will, a translation into judgment and category-formation, (although primitive at first).
It’s not that persons are determined QUA localized or numerical or geometrically given as units representing HARD determination, that is, the sort of determination of a firmly fixed, unremitting sort. The process mentioned previously IS a process of stuff bearing unique points of locale in the soup of existence. These locales ARE absolutely determined, as all stuff is, eg DNA and genetic structures. Very importantly, this includes the manner of nervous and brain system patterning. Because these locales are stuff and therefore, inert at N, they do not directly or actively affect the development of understanding but they DO provide limits to the type of activity that Q can develop, somewhat in the way a highway limits the range and direction of a car travelling on it.
So the question of determining is not easily answered. Time elements of conscious being ARE determined but not always in the manner of hard determinism. Essentially for the CONSCIOUS MODE of being, the developed understanding must NECESSARILY pursue the FREEDOM of development if conscious beings are to retain any responsibility for their thoughts and actions (rather than remain merely clever mechanisms without any prospect of transporting beyond the physical/conscious mode.
Yet C IS given as Q at N into physicality. It is a specialized PATTERN of physical development that is created over N(+W) to receive it. These patterns are created and changed each N, where Q is present to develop according to the limitations presented by the patterning of the inert brain/body states. Intentionality is a conscious event, not a physical event. The intentionality expressed at N is the inert state of the brain/body and the presentation of embryonic consciousness into that inert state. There is no physical evolution as ALL physical states are given (created) at N.
No state can affect a state that no longer exists nor a possible or not yet existent state – that is, there is no cause and effect except through creation and GIVEN consciousness.
Can CONSCIOUSNESS create consciousness?
This is a very interesting and important question, whose origins date back in history beyond Mary Shelley’s ‘monster,’ and beyond medieval legends of homunculi and succubae.
All C can affect through N its own physical locale, the body, (probably by means of affinity with D). Somehow it manages to manipulate W states through this – in human C, to a high degree of sophistication. Bus how this is achieved is in effect yet another, fourth occlusion. Somehow, through mechanical devices, C APPEARS TO EXTEND ITS EFFECTIVE LOCALE.
C can affect change of state in its own body. But by using tools, it can apparently cause state-change in it own personal locale – the body. In using tools, C thus EXTENDS its own personal locale to include a relatively small portion of nearby physical soup of existence: the axe or hammer becomes part of the arm, etc. But when some C uses the internet to send a message from Montreal to Brisbane about halfway around the globe, is that C extending its personal locale through a portion of atmosphere and space to a communication satellite from a living room in Westmount and back down to Australia with all the local state-changes at N, implied?
If the essential nature of consciousness is partly defined by its ability to cause state-change in its own body, while the INTENT of such change is to alter states BEYOND its own body, does that entail that the extra loci of states, including those brain-states of the RECIPIENT of a communication PLUS the COGNITIVITY of that recipient’s understanding, be included in the definition of the speaking C’s ‘person?’
Generally speaking, I have loosely defined person in a locale. A locale is a physical occupant of non-physical but existing placve. Both ‘space’ and particles are extended in place but they do not limit it. Place represents the PLENUM of existence; that which is extended in place, including space is NOT constrained as is place to extension EVERYWHERE in place. Place has no extension. It is where physicality including space, IS extended. Locale is given ABSOLUTELY in PLACE, RELATIVELY in SPACE.
When I say consciousness is ‘given INTO,’ stuff, that is not a proper description. Consciousness has no extension. It cannot be ACTUALLY insert INTO something. Consciousness should more properly be thought of as ASSOCIATED with a particular concentration of existence that HAS extension. Person requires consciousness. The attributes of consciousness are:
1) Knowledge of the logos which is the awakening of understanding
2) Intentionality, which allows consciousness to judge conceptually and through state-change at N, to cause motion of the particular locale (body) with which it is associated.
3) cumulative memory, N to N, which is the basic ingredient of concept formation and cumulative hierarchy establishment. The question of possible extension of ‘person,’ rises out of a definition of consciousness in respect of attribute which lends the ability of CAUSING events in W thought to be restricted to the locale with which it is directly associated.
But human C is the toolmaker. The discovery of the CONCEPT of extending the body by devising and improving on tools, means that if personhood in W by definition LIMITS it to consciousness in a specific locale and if C can cause state-change in a locale EXTERIOR to that with which the given C was originally given to be associated with, then the concept of that C’s locale must be extended to include the state or states caused to change which were given as OUTSIDE C’s body. Therefore, the states which were caused to change now become part of C’s locale and part of C’s person.
This is not really a problem. It is a misjudgment resulting from an incorrect definition. To define some ‘thing,’ that thing’s essential nature has to be determined. What defines person-ness or being a person, is not the ability to ’cause’ an event in the physical existence of the world. To simplify matters, all one has to do is remember W states come into existence from nothing. The void. EVERYTHING IN EXISTENCE IS CAUSED. The moment of existence is N, which brings all of existence into its being for the duration of N.
When N ends, there is void until a new moment of being is CREATED, bringing a new expression of existence – the world, with it. Thus every new state is a CHANGE from the state and all states that existed prior to the state at N. The cause of a state at N for N’s duration, therefore, the cause of that state’s annihilation are the ONLY causes. C does NOT CAUSE state change, not even to lift a finger of its body.
So it is therefore improper to define an existing person in terms of cause and effect in the physical world. everything in existence is CAUSED, but not CAUSATIVE. The proper definition of person is, ANY PART OF EXISTENCE WHICH BEARS AN ASSOCIATION WITH CONSCIOUSNESS IN A LOCATION OF PLACE.
Up to this point, a similarity between D and C has been drawn to the extent that both cause state change: D absolutely and c in a limited sense. This similarity is incorrect. But if C is not an agent in W, even of a limited sort, but is caused, as is all existence, then does that entail C is completely determined? First of all, it can be noted that the question of Oct 14 & 15 ‘can C create C?’ is now answered with a definite, ‘No!’ C CAN CREATE OR CAUSE NOTHING. ONLY D CAN CAUSE.
But of course, C seems most conclusively to have the power to affect its own immediate locale or body – and through it, to affect change in no only immediate but also through advanced technology, its DISTANT environment.
To amplify that previous assertion, only D can affect cause. In order to be a causal agent must exist and act BEFORE an affect resulting from that act is achieved, ie it must be, as they say, an ‘antecedent condition.’ In effect, in order to be so, TIME must be evoked. No state or condition of existence can act out of time – any state of existence is the result of an act that CREATES the time in which it exists. In order for existence to be created, TIME – as well as place and change, the act itself of bringing something out of nothing – must also be created.
Now…if the state thus created or a substate of that state is to act in order to create a new state of existence, it must create the NEW time in which the new state is to come into existence. But…in order to so create a new time, it must abolish the time in which it exists. But in thus abolishing the moment of its own existence, it ASBOLISHES ITSELF and the result is void: absolute nothing in which there is nothing present that is capable of acting to cause a new existence.
In this wise, the logos which narrates the condition of existence also LIMITS existence to : Being, Time, Place and Change. Therefore existence is LIMITED to time and time must be abolished and renewed in order for a new state to be. Therefore, no state can cause a new state. Therefore, since change is creation of a NEW state and no state can create another, ALL STATES OF EXISTENCE ARE INERT.
And finally, therefore, the creation of any state must be the ACT and the RESULT of that act of AN AGENT THAT HAS AN EXISTENCE INDEPENDENT OF THE EXISTENCE IT CREATES, IN A TIME AND PLACE INDEPENENT OF THE TIME AND PLACE IT CREATES. Thus, for existence,- OUR existence, W, the logos is an immutable law. Since C is a member of W. It cannot cause – as pointed out earlier.
Now the question is: we are determined but is there some kind of freedom of will and act WITHIN that condition of overriding determinism that allows conscious beings to at least move their own bodies within the content of that deterministic framework or are conscious beings existing under a delusion? If the latter is the case then all of us – amoebae, jumping spiders and humans are nothing but little herky jerky puppets living in a very dangerous world that we can’t do anything about.
There are some people no doubt, that would welcome a condition of absolute determinism: psychopaths for sure and perhaps some corporate executives and their political lackeys; maybe a squadron of four-year-olds. ‘The Demiourgos made me do it!’ which absolves everyone from social responsibility but not just freedom from fear or worry. Justice would be reduced to diktats of the state, on-the-sport police decision-making, orders issued by an army commander or local community committees of public safety and consequent lynch mobs. The idea of justice would be reduced to state or community revenge. Essentially the MORAL authority for justice could not rest in responsibility because responsibility assumes the FREEDOM of the individual to decide and to act.
So what OF this freedom?
The good rabbi was often reported to have punctuated a sermon with the words, ‘Those who have ears, let THEM hear!’ Some have ears and some do not. When a jumping spider or a cougar attacks its prey, we generally assume they do not pause to reconsider in light of the suffering they are about to cause their food. They have biological requirements but their categorical hierarchies are, compared with those of most humans, sparse.
In the matter of free will, this should be noted: even though our every thought and emotion wee caused, our CHOICE to WISH to have a will that is free is in itself an expression of intention ability. Values are chosen or, if accepted mindlessly, reaffirmed or disaffirmed at some point or points in our lives. Just as the acceptance or rejection of a proposition represents freedom of judgment, necessary for the development of understanding, the affirmation or disaffirmation of a value is representative of an emotional choice of an individual consciousness in a locale of existing place in an existing time.
Either that conscious locale is individualized as a person or it is a fragmented part of the determining agent of being. But in this case, fragmentation would imply a unity in locale separated from the creating agent and itself subject to the act (change) of being brought into existence at a specific time. In short, its consciousness would be limited by the logos. There would be no essential difference between it and a conscious locale in place.
Let us pretend that the universe, all of being consisted of one X. This X has always existed, which is to say it always exists, ‘now.’ it never existed BEFORE ‘now,’ because there is only, ‘now’ never a before, ‘now.’ If there were a time before now, THAT ‘now,’ would have to stop existing before, ‘now,’ could be. In order for there to be a progression of time that would allow X to have a history of being and not only be, ‘now,’ and never once before or maybe sometime to come, the time X is, must be annihilated so that a new time and new X may appear.
We speak of this new X as being the same as the one before it. But of course it isn’t. Time and therefore existence depend on the void in order to have a past, a once upon a time, a history. The change from the X that once was, allows the X that is now to be a little different from the X that was just before. It also allows its components to be in a little different relation to each other than they were previously.
The change, the difference of the new X that has emerged from absolute nothing to the X that was before is interpreted by us as motion WITHIN X. But of course, this too is not true. We interpret the X that is now, as the same X that was moments ago, as the same X that was in place 800 AD when Carlus Magnus placed the crown of empire on his own head (thus denying the bishop of Rome the sacred privilege of exalting the new emperor – but we are wrong.
Without the void there is no time. ‘Is’ remains frozen: changeless, motionless, without thought, without joy, fear, sorrow or hope. We and the world are blocks, stones, worse than senseless things. But we are given time. With time we are given change which we conscious beings see as motion with the cumulative memory of Q at N. This we variously interpret in our hierarchy of categories as mass, velocity, attraction/repulsion, energy, spin and so forth.
We interpret. We err only because we are FREE to make judgments, right or wrong. Making a judgment is a presentation of a WILL to do so. This is a will that is FREE. If it were not free, our beliefs would be neither right nor wrong, true nor false. They would be only given and nothing more. Error is a sign of free will.
If there is a free will, its physical results are prone to get mixed in with the determined course of time and state-change. that is to say, that perhaps, even if the mind completely controls the body (and that may not always be the case), it does not control the environment in rushing across the room to answer the phone (as not all of us have cell phones). It is all too easy to slip and break a hip. There may be a difference between simple free will and EFFECTIVE free will.
Since all that is, enters this state of ‘is’ from nothing, whatever impels that action must determine what the new state will be, because its being endures merely an instant since change or ‘newness’ banishes it. While that state is, it is fixed and motionless and cannot involve action within itself since such an action would be change, or a new state. This is difficult to conceive which is probably why I go over it again and again from different angles.
But the fact remains the world must have a time that is its own time when it is just what it is and is not altered in the smallest particle. Once such an alteration occurs, that time is gone and the world that was at that moment of time is gone as well. At that moment, the world is in a state of existence, like a photograph of everything – the cosmos and all other cosmoses if there be such a condition – frozen in a still frame. There was a world that existed before it, but it is gone; its TIME is gone – both that world and that time no longer ‘IS.’
Perhaps the world that ‘IS’ has some power, some mysterious attribute that allows it to change itself, say move one electron one incredibly tiny distance. But could it perform such a feat in the moment of time allotted for it to endure? No, because the moment the electron is moved is a new moment and a new state of existence obtains. What that means is that the ‘picture’ of being has to OVERCOME its pictureness and bring into being a NEW TIME in which a NEW PICTURE will exist that is not the picture that it is ‘now.’
That act of overcoming what it is would be ITSELF what is is not – a ‘self’ of being that would have to overcome what it is BEFORE it could change to what it is NOT by moving the electron. If this were the case, then a new time and with it, a new world state would have to be created in order to move the electron and achieve the originally intended world state. But the time a world state exists in, cannot be changed without the creation of a new world state – the state in which the state that IS changes to a NEW STATE in a NEW TIME in which that previous state INTENDS to move the electron and thus create a new time and a new state.
Thus an INTERIM state in a new time has been set up, summon the power or the force or intention to create the new state in which the electron will be advanced. But in order to achieve this, the original state must cease to exist – that is, the appearance of power in itself represents a change in the original state which is not a ‘picture’ of the world but a state in which a ‘force,’ or ‘power’ has been introduced into being which previously didn’t exist. Since that new power is representative of a NEW state in virtue of a change in attributes from the original state – a creation of something that previously did not exist.
There must be an infinite regression of states in which time is broken up to summon the force that will change the state to one that will summon the force that will change the original state and so on. That is to say time and being would be in an infinite condition of reduction. But this cannot be the case as time must have a final point or particle in which being IS – that is to say, a point of duration which is irreducible. Power or force, like thought, cannot be represented in a state of being because states are ‘pictures’ – frozen, inert.
This is the nature of physicality. Within itself, physicality moves from state to state, not by means of some mysterious power buried within matter, but by means of an impulsion BEYOND physical existence. Without a period of duration there could be no existence. There must always be a TIME – a DURATION – when the world IS before it is not, and a new world replaces it from nothing. Whatever this impulsive toward time and ebing is, it forms each state that is produced from nothing. Void.
The world is determined by this impulsive and perhaps it is PRE-determined as well.
MORE TO COME OF THIS INVESTIGATION OF EXISTENCE
(More To Follow Of This Investigation of Existence)