Jan 15 (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) (Diagram part of Jan 15 post)
The cause of N(+W) is the only direct cause. There is only one other cause: consciousness. Consciousness is INDIRECT because although it is intentional – the essential attribute of both causes. It has to refer back to the prime cause of existence to achieve change of STATES of existence. This must be so because it is WITHIN existence as given and can only act as intention at N. The power to create a state of existence in time is the power to overcome void. This must issue from beyond existence. Therefore, consciousness, which because it shares attributes of act and intentionality with the cause of existence, must be of the nature of the cause, refers its intentionality to the whole of which it is part.
Cause, then, OF existence becomes particularized in locales when it enters the physicalia of existence. Such a particularization of cause is what we refer to as a self – a life. Ancient peoples and many religions today uphold a belief in a continuation of the self after death. Many, because of the failure of the brain and body which defines death, cannot see how consciousness, which requires ongoing memory, can be supported when memory, let alone perception, fails.
The intentionality that consciousness represents is not the intentionality of the CAUSE of N(+W) which lies beyond existence. But because it is within existence it remains intentionality. But as such it is particularized to a physical locale in place. Such a locale is built state-by-state over N as an interco-operative community of living (that is, conscious) cells that receives consciousness that has entered existence as an intention of the CAUSE of N(+W)to recognize the logos of existence and thus become being, the knower and being as what is known – the ACT of SELF.
The act of knowing as divided is the basic self. This occurs at each N and is carried into a locale of physicalia where what is known is the perceptia categorized into objects or KINDS of things presented in and selected out of the jumble of perception. Categories and category structures have to be REMEMBERED – the basis of understanding. The intentionality retained throughout this process is at its root the INTENTION TO PRESERVE THE SELF. This is the intention given into existence at N by the CAUSE of N(+W).
But the question is, ‘How can a self be preserved when the supporting community of cells that provided memory required by the understanding breaks down and disolves?’
Here there is a small diagram: >
Consciousness enters existence (acts A) as an act of INTENTIONALITY OF THE CAUSE of existence. In existence it attends a particular locale and recognizes the logos, a process which divides existential recognition into knower and known, which is at this point, the SELF. The self becomes enhanced (Act B) by perception, conceptia and memory in building understanding through mostly the social world. The self now known [ ] judgments true or false) ‘reality’ – the self becomes knower/known in the social world which is sustained by the body through memory.
The self is consciousness which the INTENTIONALITY OF THE CAUSE gives into existence and which is transformed by recognition of the logos into INTENTIONALITY TO SUSTAIN THE SELF – ACT C. Therefore the intentionality to sustain the self – the primitive consciousness is, in effect, an extension of the cause of N(+W). That is, to RETAIN the self that is in existence at N.
The will to sustain the self in existence is balanced or at times, overbalanced and weighted by the suffering of the self in existence. This happens at one point or another probably more often than not. Existence in the physical world, or more correctly the social world is essentially for most living creatures, a struggle. Life is based on the hunt for protein first with power and hedonistic pursuits close behind. Further to this, there is the question of the particularization of consciousness in existence. This, of course, leads to personal isolation in the social world, along with psychological difficulties, notably loneliness, despair and lack of personal social value: it also can lead to empathy and love.
The third occlusion presents the question of an epistemic self in no locale. The self begins with the recognition of the logos, the first burst of Q – consciousness at N. The epistemic self – the knower/known – is born. The epistemic self begins with the intentionality of D to enter into effect – existence. That is, the intentionality to BE in the world. But according the logos, one of the conditions of existence is PLACE. The intention to be must be given into, occur (because intentionality is the ACT of embryonic consciousness), in an extended locale of physicalia. Moreover, this locale must be chemically prepared to receive it.
When the causal intentionality is given into existence as consciousness, it is thus PARTICULARIZED first as an epistemic self, then as a self in the world. Even single-cell bodies have a memory of committing a purposeful act over the succession of N. The ‘memory’ is the conscious ACT of TRANSFORMATION of an inert material configuration into knowledge (in the case of an amoeba, knowledge of possible environmental protein), HOW this transformation is possible remains a mystery – the first occlusion. It is akin in the medieval alchemical search for evidence of transubstantiation, the change of one substance into another – the beginning of the science of chemistry.
When the death line is re-crossed, what was as Q at N, the intentionality of the cause, D, to BE in its affect, is no longer particularized in a locale transforming the material body into understanding.
1) Retain a self with no locale? Or
2) Cease to BE in existence? Or
3) Migrate to a new locale? Or
4) Enter another mode that is not physical?
Whatever causes time and existence:
A] Brings it out of VOID. Therefore, N(+W) would have to PRE-EXIST to cause itself
B] Creates a physicality that gives the APPEAARANCE of behaving in consistent ways: lawlike behavior. Each following state of N
differs only slightly from that preceding. Not chaotic – even random activity of particles can be predicted in populations.
C] Provides a DESCRIPTION of existence in four metacategories – the logos
D] Attends some matter in existence as intentionality of cause IN the effect. Intentionality becomes C in particularized place on
recognition of logos.
Of the above, A] is necessary. B] is immediately apparent to the understanding, but not necessary. C] is necessary, given the actuality of existence. D] is hypothetical, based on conceived attributes of intentionality and action SHARED by C and the cause of N(+W).
Matter is inert at N but C – as Q – is an act, something that HAPPENS IN matter (the brain), at N. This act must be given as the intention to transform the material portion of the physical plenum that is the body into understanding: the judgments of kinds, forms, categories. There is no material or accidental cause. The ONLY cause in existence is that having the effect of the creation of time and existence where there was NO thing, only void. This cause in order to overcome void and create existence, is very unlikely – in fact, impossible because preexistence of a mechanical cause is impossible – to be accidental, therefore, it has to be intentional and intentionality is a basic form of consciousness.
Therefore, the consciousness that appears in inert matter at N must be acts of the conscious intentionality of the CAUSE of N(+W) extending INTO N(+w). As such they must be given into PLACE. But when the material configuration of the body break up the memory it stored to support the process of understanding must be divorced from the intentionality given into existence. The ontological self is lost. But the epistemic self cannot dissipate. It is the intentionality of the cause represented in N+W) as intentionality to maintain the self. It does not die. But in order to remain IN existence, it must be an act that transforms physicality into memory and perceptia.
On the other hand, is it conceivable that the PLACE of the logos of existence this epistemic self now occupied be existence itself – ie no-where and every-where? As a matter of perspective, however, it should be kept in mind that we are all expressions of the cause of N(+W)’s INTENTIONALITY as consciousness – as such, our collective origin, particularized or not, lies BEYOND time and existence. Whatever ontic selves we assume after what we call, ‘death,’ we remain as what we began. We cannot be utterly extinguished.
But what is it in existence or out of existence that is inextinguishable, after the body has gone the way of existence? Of the four possibilities listed, the first is a self, even an epistemic self with no physical locale, seems problematic until we remember what is meant by the logos condition, ‘place.’ PLACE is not determined by physicalia. There has been a tendency to conflate, ‘place,’ and ‘locale,’ in this query (mine of course). PLACE is the condition of being in a HERE or THERE, as NECESSARY for being at all.
By ‘locale,’ I mean (at least from here on), simply a point or a grouping of points IN the plenum of physicalia. so BEFORE thee can be a ‘locale,’ there must necessarily be existence in which there can be a PLACE in which that locale can be found. The confusion has been deepened by my usage of ‘locale,’ to mean BOTH (at different times), a place in existence and a part of space. Space can occupy a locale in place but place is NECESSARY for space or other physicalia to be at all: not the other way round.
So this implies then, that place and physical existence, are not the same thing. Existence in other modes than physical, may be possible, occupying PLACE as existants but not necessarily being in the same LOCALE as anything physical, like a nebula or a neutrino. Therefore it can make sense to refer to the epistemic self as occupying a RELATION in PLACE, but not NECESSARILY being in the same locale as anything physical.
This ‘relation’ is the knower/known bipartite celation that composes the epistemic self. But the self, in order to have an ongoing knowing relation to the environment of his knowing: the object or ‘known,’ must have some means of retaining this environment, including the self as the ACT of knowing. In a way, the act makes the actor. In the physical existence, the self as knower has to judge perceptia into categories. In the absence of a brain of present Q with physicalia to transform and a physicalized conceptia for Q to re-translate into memory, the activity that is Q would be altered somewhat. The process of translation would then be unnecessary.
The act of consciousness must include that which is conscious and that which the consciousness is directed to. Within the context of successive N, the environment of C would be conceptia but would the conceptia at this level be consistent enough to be organized into understanding? The fact that Q represents conscious intentionality of the cause in existence, eg the intentionality of SPECIFIC memory recall, suggests that Q retains some knowledge of what is to be recalled, but lacks specificity.
Such an hypothetical state seems to me to be existence in a fog, somewhat similar to a series of brief, disconnected dreams. Being in existence and subject to the logos, the only way an epistemic self could attain or re-attain to understanding, would be through the intervention of state-change.
Anecdotal evidence – my own small experience as well as that of others – has led at least in my case, to the suspicion that although the body and brain are required for ongoing physical existence, a ‘life in the world,’ as it’s called, some sort of being of the person often enough, remains after death. Even in an age and culture where the belief in a soul has been largely expunged by the new canon of science, there hangs in the cultural air, a whiff of the unclinically demonstrated. Certainly the stubbornness to accept that someone you love so much, who was so vital to you IS not, will never BE again, has a lot to do with it.
The social world is defined by science and that includes the rules about what is to be believed and what is not to be believed about reality. Like it or not, science is largely defined by money – private, corporate, military, public and civil. The self in the social world, lives with an intensity of purpose or it is cast to the gutter. The purpose defines the self. Purpose is intentionality. The cause of time and existence is intentionality. The intentionality of consciousness in existence is not so unified.
The intentionality of living selves is a very broad spectrum, the more intercommunicative and the more intercooperative C becomes in higher complexity. What begins as an ontic intentionality to maintain the self becomes in humans a diversity of values of which self-maintaining is only one, (albeit the most basic and primitive). The intentionality that allows a conscious body to influence state-change to the lifting of an arm to flick off a light switch, may also attain the means of maintaining the epistemic self without the memory and perceptual support of a brain.
Where it might be located would necessarily have to be in PLACE, yes, for it to continue in existence. But although PLACE is necessary for physical bodies, physical existence is NOT necessary for PLACE.
More To Follow of This Investigation of Existence