Unpublished Words From Elsewhere 69

Jan 8(2016) (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)

We expect that, with the demise of the body, the dissolution of the cells and their community into molecules, atoms and elementary particles that Q no longer acts to retrieve memory and therefore must cease to build understanding in a world that is essentially composed of the interrelations of conceptia. The ‘self’ is essentially this understanding along with the will to act and the experiencing of mood and emotion – all based on logos recognition of being and of place as the object being’s awareness – the environment of knowing, which is what being is, in understanding. Much of this environment has been learned as conceptia through life and stored as patterns of brain configuration, inert at N and instantly recalled by Q.

This is the INTENTIONALITY of Q, which itself is an expression of the KNOWING of the logos, that therefore must originate with the cause of the logos and the ACT of existence, since IN the condition of existence, only consciousness can ACT to know existence in its form as the logos and in the particulars of recalling as a transformation of the physicalia of the brain into conceptia and in recognizing pereptia in terms of categories (filtering out most perceptia that doesn’t, ‘fit’).

The brain is plainly necessary. Without the living cells of a body and in particular, in bodies with a brain and nervous system, there is nothing for Q to have the conversation of life with. When understanding loses the ability to recall its conceptia, including that of itself as object of being, it can reasonably be expected would therefore be lost with the body, and death would be complete. But consciousness is an expression of the CAUSE of existence and though it exists in virtue of recognizing the LOGOS of existence, its ORIGIN is not IN existence but as the expression as the knowledge of the cause of existence.

Argument for C as residual:
1) The cause as argued earlier, must be INTENTIONAL
2) Therefore the intended effect must have FORM (the logos)
3) An intended form must be the object of KNOWING
4) Consciousness appears in existence as knowing of the FORM of existence (the logos)
5) This knowing could be a sort of residual intelligence of the agent of N(+W), given into the ACT of creation as consciousness in
existence. Existence is physical and INERT. But consciousness is not physically extended but ACTIVE in various states of
physicalia. Consciousness represents the ONLY action in existence at N. Therefore it is an action GIVEN in and by an act =
creation of existence.
6) Action is attributable to the cause AND consciousness. Therefore, since consciousness shares an attribute possessed ONLY by
the agent, consciousness must be a PART of the whole agent.
7) SO consciousness, which also alone in existence, shares intentionality with the cause of existence, has its origin in this
cause and does not change as does the stuff of physical existence – that is, IT DOES NOT DIE.

So consciousness, which IS life in physical bodies must continue to live on after the death of the physical body. At this poit, C would be:
A) Logos awareness but no memory of a physical self and it would
B) Retain intentionality, but no locale through which it could act in existence. Also it hardly needs being said, C would possess no
brain to transform into perceptual information.

How would it exist with a locale to exist in?

Jan 9

In consideration of that last question, it should be kept in mind that consciousness is not extended in place as is matter, but as Q is an ACT – or more correctly, a collection or bundle of activities in existence.

It: 1) Is AWARE of the logos of existence and therefore is aware of being as knowing and AS knowing, having an object or objects of the
ACTIVITY of knowing.
2) Is INTENTIONAL in its knowing of an object – the separation of knowing as an awareness of place: the knower (here) and the
known (there). Even when the ‘knower’ is what being is aware of, the ‘knower’ is removed in PLACE AS A CONCEPT from ‘here’
to ‘there,’ (see Sartre’s TRANSCENDENCE OF THE EGO.

With the loss of the supporting structure of a body, Q is no longer a ‘happening’ in a locale of physical matter. It has no perceptia. It has no memory of an historical, physical self. It is, in a sense, divorced from physical existence, but not necessarily from the awareness of the logos.

How could this be?

Well, Q (elementary consciousness) is a burst of awareness and the intentionality (point 2) of the OBJECTIVICATION of consciousness – that is, the division of knower and known. This is a NECESSARY result of the awareness of the logos in which PLACE is one of the 4 categories of existential necessity. So therefore, Q as a happening at N doesn’t necessarily have to lose an ongoing (over N), awareness of a knowing subject or an EPISTEMIC self. What it loses is the awareness of physical existence including the self that was in the physical world.

a) No locale for Q – must be in physicalia
b) Vestigial memory in Q’s intentionality

Jan 10

But the question now is, ‘If consciousness is given into physical existence and one of the conditions of existence is place, where then, if consciousness no longer attends a locale as it formerly did in a body, is consciousness to be found? The only answer has to be NOwhere. It appears to be in existence but if it doesn’t occupy PLACE as it did when it attended a body and if PLACE is one of the necessary conditions of existence, then the implication to be drawn must be that consciousness after death of the body, doesn’t exist.

If we insist on the existence of consciousness after death, then that consciousness would then be in violation of one of the four necessary conditions of the logos, which, taken together, DEFINE existence to break up the necessity of interimplication of the logos would break down the MEANING of existence. There would be no agreement on what characteristics we intend when we use the term and the question could reasonably be asked, “how can something exist when it isn’t anywhere?” As earlier I suggested that since consciousness shares attributes of action and intentionality which nothing else in existence have, it is quite likely that it is residual action and intentionality, given as part of the CAUSE of existence given into the effect – or, to put it in a medieval sense, consciousness is of the SUBSTANCE of the agent of existence and therefore has its origin BEYOND existence, (as does the Demiourgos.

Jan 12

Therefore, though consciousness RECOGNIZES existence through recognition of the logos, it is not bound by the CONDITIONS of the logos. But if consciousness is residual INTENTIONALITY of cause given into the act of effect, existence then, when it is given at N, and if it, as Q, is an act itself of recognizing the logos, it must be subject as long as it is in existence to the CONDITIONS of existence, even though its ORIGIN is beyond existence and it is represenative in part of what brought about the existence.

One of these conditions of existence or categories of the logos, is PLACE. At N, consciousness must either be given into place, that is, given into a locale, or not given. After loss of the body, consciousness’ action at N centers about the intentionality of MAINTAINING that locale. It acts to bring about memory, mood (which is a form of knowledge of being), and perception through reference to state-change or the intentionality of cause. All these go to build understanding and the hierarchical conceptia of understanding.

But without a locale in which to act, consciousness would lose not only its memory of self IN existence but its intentionality to maintain that self in a locale. Consciousness requires place to become itself in the separation of knower and known. But almost paradoxically, consciousness was itself born of intentionality and the recognition of the logos of existence – an almost mythlike instantiation of cause IN effect.

Jan 13

The rational expectation is that with death of the body, the memory, perceptual and emotional bases that go to support consciousness’s sense of ‘self,’ as knower and known – the division of place – would be lost to consciousness. Being in place in the plenum of existence, renders that sense of existential isolation that is self. It is reinforced, of course, by the learning of the SOCIAL WORLD, wherein the known – or more correctly, the knowledge of a ‘know-ABLE’- is expanded immensely. In the social world, the knowing consciousness shrinks to a tiny dot in the vast sea of being.

At death, the place is dissolved where consciousness had been hitherto at N, becomes formless matter. All that was self in the social world, is no more. This is not a process initiated by matter but a process over successive N caused by the demiourgos. Consciousness is demiourgos given into existence WITH the act of intentional causation. The origin of intentional causation. The origin of intentional causation remains the origin – it is beyond existence and time. It, the demiourgos, creates anew with each N, but consciousness is not created. It is, (to use that medieval term) of the SUBSTANCE of what causes W at N – or, as Erigena put it;
‘What creates but is not created.’

If this sounds like mysticism, that is mostly due to terminology, but the terminology is apt enough as description. It has been argued that N(+W) is intentional, not chaotic. The intention of N(+W) is distilled in the four metacategories or conditions or existence, of the logos. Consciousness begins with recognition of the logos – being here and now, which, in turn, is the recognition of the division of knowing and what is known or ‘self.’ As N progresses, ‘what is known,’ expands, almost, one might imagine, threatening to consume the KNOWING. But the knowing, though given INTO existence, is not OF existence, because existence is extended, inert matter at N, whereas knowing is an action through the duration of N. Moreover the knowing INTENDS:
a) The configuration of the brain through N in establishing memory
b) The RECALL of specific neural configurations to be translated from matter into understanding (as discussed earlier) as memory.
c) Bodily action as station change of locales of W at N

These attributes of intentionality and action are shared with the cause of N(+W) and not with anything else in W. This argues for the hypothesis that CONSCIOUSNESS IS CAUSE IN AN ELEMENTAL FORM given into along with the effect (N+W), but not as PART of the effect, but rather as of ITSELF. Now the conclusions drawn from the points raised in this account do indeed contain elements of Gnosticism, Neo-Platonism and even mysticism, but the bare and overriding fact remains that being IS a mystery: the greatest mystery – but that is not a good reason to pretend that it is not important.

Drawing from point b), it is important to take into consideration that when consciousness, as Q recalls it, SUMMONS a series of brain configurations at succeeding N (which is conceived of as neural electrochemical activity). The ability to EVOKE (from D) future brain-states or, for that matter, any local state-change and extensions of such, provides strong evidence that C is elemental D IN W. But FURTHER than that, and very importantly that, in the case of memory recall, the intentionality of Q indicates a vestigial knowledge BEFOREHAND of the memory it INTENDS to recall.

***

We might consider that C is residual intentionality of D, awakened by logos. Intentionality implies knowledge which can be true or false. But in the case of D, which IS the CAUSE of existence, knowledge is always true. But in the case of C which is given INTO the effect (existence), knowledge requires the judgment of categories and any given categorical judgment of a perceptium or of conceptia, can be true OR false, depending on the understanding’s conceptual arrangement and hierarchy. C, in its purest form is essentially an epistemic being that relies almost wholly on the conceptual structure which IS the social world.

Most of this structure is retained in the body in the form of the neural complex, genetic sequencing, hormones and other proteins. When the body dies, the force of the social world is largely lost to the understanding. The loss of the body in place must be particularly disrupting to C. In this circumstance, C must possible:
1) Cease to be a knowing presence in W
2) Return to unity in D
3) Be locked, (as in dreaming or hallucination), into an isolated world of conceptia, appearing in collections, random or intentional.
4) Since C is not material, it does not change in the manner of stuff at N – that is, it does not break down into components. It is an INTENTIONAL ACT at N that is without a specific locale. This act is recognition of logos and thus itself as knowing itself. It IS, without being as attendant upon an extended body of physicalia.
5) It may, ‘visit’ other biological forms which, by definition, are receptive to Q.
6) There may be, in physical existence, other formations of stuff, immense or tiny, that are not biological but nonetheless are receptive to Q and which may support an intentional building of understanding.

Jan 14

C is given as Q at N. Q is a fresh act of logos recognition/time-being-place-change at each N. An act is an event having a beginning and an end, which implies as well as BEING, a PLACE to occur in, TIME in which the beginning to the end is a period of duration or a number immediately sequential N, and finally a CHANGE in the subject of the act. Material action takes place over a series of states of existence at N in which change occurs as each state is presented as distinct from that immediately preceding.
Conscious change involves change from recognition of the logos to the intentionality of self through the organization of knowing (self) and what is known by the knowing subject of self.

The act of Q comes with the causal act of creation of existence at N – what we call the ‘cosmos.’ The cosmos is a plenum composed of stuff, including space. With each N, a new creation presents a new set of relationships in the PLACE of stuff in which densities of stuff change, clusters thickening or thinning. This series of existential state creations present the APPEARANCE of motion and force throughout the plenum of existence.

One of the types of ‘clustering’ of stuff presented through the succession of N is the biological life-form, the ‘life’ being the presentation at each N of Q as an ACT of recognition of the SELF as organized knower and known through the logos INTO but not OF the chemical soup of protein molecules, enzymes, DNA, etc that is a prepared biological life form. As long as this form receives Q with each N in which it is created anew, the biological form will be given the intentionality of the cause, which is the essential nature or Q. This intentionality of Q is the intentionality to Be.

The enhancement of retaining this self is preserved in the MEMORY of the biological form by Q which IS the intentionality of the CAUSE of time and existence. There is evidentially a collaboration between physical existence as an inert state, as a storage of memory, perceptual connection and source of mood and the quickening art of consciousness as given into locales of physicalia at N. this collaboration ends when the stuff of the locale begins to dissipate through the plenum.

Consciousness enters into existence as an act of the intentionality of D in creating existence. As an action it is pure and undifferentiated, representing the will to create. IN existence, consciousness must be somewhere, place being a defining category of existence. Therefore, C is given into a locale of W that can RECEIVE it – a chemical condition – where through logos recognition and memory transfer with the body into which it is given, it can organize the epistemic condition of ‘self.’

Memory – and therefore the knower/known self, enhanced by mood and perceptia, are necessary for the particularization of consciousness in existence. Consciousness needs a ‘where,’ of place because it is ACT – not STATE. It needs to act IN a locale before logos -recognition can occur and a self can be grown. Therefore, when C loses its body, it ceases to be particularized in PLACE, in a locale. The C that happened in the locale at N is not without PLACE, it is nowhere.

But it is not possible for consciousness to die. C is OF the demiourgos as particularized intentionality – a residual deposit in existence as it were, of the causal act of creation at N. C will continue to enter existence at N. But all acts of C are part of the act of creation at N. differentiation as a self, only occurs when C is given into a locale. Therefore there is no enduring consciousness of self after death of the body. This is a reasoned proposition, not to be accepted without thorough consideration.

To begin with:

C represents the INTENTIONALITY OF EXISTENCE of the demiourgos in creation. It IS the will of the demiourgos to BE in existence. This will originates OUTSIDE existence. Therefore, it does not cease or die. In existence, the will is particularized in physicalia as a SELF. The physical locale dissipates but does the SELF that is an expression of the will of the deminourgos, cease to be? To assert that it does would be that in a particular situation, the intentionality of the demiourgos FAILED.

Is this POSSIBLE?

Or perhaps, this is the intention of D.

MORE TO FOLLOW OF THIS INVESTIGATION OF EXISTENCE

2 Comments


  1. Happy Birthday Grant:
    May your very busy demiurge cast His beneficience down upon you as He tosses you hither and yon in accordance with His divine plan for this cosmological plaything that he has created (is creating) for His amusement.
    Love: BOO!!!


  2. Thanks, Bruce. Happy August 16 in advance. G

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *