An Investigation Into Time & Existence 71

Jan 22 – (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)

If science is correct, the universe is growing outward : its density is decreasing or more physicalia is being created. It seems the prevailing opinion supports the former. If the cosmos is indeed growing like a malignant tumor, then it must be growing into somewhere there is room for it to grow. This ‘somewhere’ would, of course be PLACE. PLACE, if it exists, then there is existence, which is to say that existence is defined categorically by the logos, one of those interimplicatory categories being PLACE.

So if consciousness is given into existence, that would mean that hypothetically, C could be given anywhere, ie, any PLACE. If it is true that the cosmos is growing like a balloon, then since it must grow into PLACE, there must be more PLACE then there is cosmos – which term is taken to include all of physical existence, including the space thought to be separating matter – anything from the smallest possible particles to immense galactic clusters, to giant gas clouds.

If space is indeed a vacuum, it is not void, because space, like stuff, is some ‘where’ – which is to say it occupies PLACE and I conclude therefore that the cosmos where in PLACE it exists, is a plenum. Physicalia. Our experience of ourselves is that we are consciousness given at N into the specialized stuff of physical existence. Consciousness is, in effect, the transformation of physical stuff, the body/brain as a configuration at N arrive at, through CHANGE of the state of ALL existence. That is to say that’s what consciousness is given into PHYSICAL EXISTENCE is.

That’s us – ‘living’ stuff that is transformed in the ONLY instant N that time is, by an act or KNOWING existence, the LOGOS. We are epistemic beings towing around a body that we collude with, in the chemical necessity of staying alive and a brain we use to be aware that we are in the physical and (for most of us, transforming the part of the physical that is our brains, into knowing. (Note that I distinguish, ‘knowing’ as the act of awareness from the more complexly epistemological term, ‘knowledge.’

Our knowing originates with intention of the cause of N(+W) to be IN N(+W) and in that part of W that is physical or – rather SOME of that part – becomes CONSCIOUSNESS by recognizing the logos: what it is as a SELF in physical existence intentionally transforming physical existence into knowing itself (knower/known) and RECALLING that knowing as N replaces N. It is so curious that this being of cause in effect seems to be so sparsely distributed throughout the cosmos.

But IS it?

We only KNOW what is physical because our knowing begins as matter that is transformed by an ACT at N into knowing. This act is, of course, the act of intentional cause: the replacing of void with time and existence. Creation. Therefore our consciousness at N is an act of transformation of stuff. The act is an INTENTIONAL cause entering into creation. So what Descartes doubted (his body), was in effect, stuff transformed by the act of causal intentionality into knowing, (doubting itself.)

Jan 23

So the self begins with, and is, maintained by an act of intention by D, is transformed into recognition of existence (logos) and that recognition is extended to the body and the physical environment about the body AND is supported by bodily chemical configurations which the consciousness transforms and integrates into its ACT of knowing as memory. The succession of these acts included in memory. The succession of these acts included in creation of existence at N goes on to build the INTENSIONAL acts of judgment: categories

Here there is a small diagram:

D has an arrow pointing down to a box called Logos (Conditions of Existence).
An arrow goes down from the Logos box to N +Being + Place + Change (All Existence W)
An arrow goes down again to a box that says: Physical Existence (subset of existence)
A final arrow goes down to ‘Occulsion 3)
Along the left hand side going downward are the words: ‘Recognition of Logos.’

So at occlusion 3, the particularized support for consciousness – that increased density of the plenum of physicalia called, ‘the body,’ with its intricate system of internal communication – dissolves into the plenum at large. It loses its density as the overall configuration or geometry is changed by D at each N. The intentionality as a whole of D cannot be known, even by intentionality instantiated as consciousness in the body. All that can be known by stuff ignited by recognition of the logos, is the stuff of which it is a part and the result of change brought about at N and judged by the self as motion and force.

At occlusion 3, there is no longer a functioning body to support understanding and the physical self is lost in the confusion of matter changing at N. In the act of consciousness, the intentionality of the Demiourgos in the art of creation BECOMES, in a living body, consciousness. C begins as an awareness of existence as the logos and immediately becomes the knower of the SELF as existing. Through transformation of the particularlized matter – the body – it is given into KNOWING OF EXISTENCE OTHER THAN ITSELF, C moves from an EPISTEMIC SELF to an ONTIC SELF.


When D intentionality enters EFFECT – existence – it does so through the CONDITIONS of existence, the logos. It first establishes itself in existence as the epistemic self and then in recognition of PHYSICAL existence, as the ontic self. At occulsion 3, the ontic self can no longer be supported. But D has entered existence at N as intentionality.

Can the epistemic self be lost?

This we can’t know because we only know as ONTIC selves, prior to occulsion 3.

There is no necessary reason to believe that the epistemic self is lost as well as the ontic at occlusion 3. The epistemic self is intentionality particularized in place as awareness of knowing – the epistemic self As discussed earlier, this inentionality assumes a physical dimension. But place is not physicality. It is a CONDITION of physicality. Therefore, the epistemic self as an instantiation of the WILL of D can POSSIBLY remain in existence as an epistemic self, POSSIBLY even with some vestigial memory of the self as also physicalia.

It can, as well, since it is not extended as an inert body or spatial thinning of the plenum of physical existence, occupy the same PLACE but not be part of any locale of physicalia. It is conceivable to speculate that once the ontic self dissipates, the epistemic self may continue on in existence. It IS as instantiated will of the CAUSE of existence. Its particularisation might possible reside anywhere in place as an ACT of recognising itself as intentionality to exist at N – when all exists at once.

This speculative extrapolation is based on the hypothesis that each Q in existence at N is a particularized member of the ENTIRE ACT of bringing existence out of the void at N. Q is a small act of existential intentionality. To BE in the logos terms of existence IS TO BE A SELF. ALL BEING IS THE WILL OF THE CAUSE OF N (+W). Therefore, the epistemic self of knower/known MUST, as part of the entirety that wills N(+W), BE. At N there could be no alternative. The intentionality that wills existence at N overcoming absolute nothing, does this BEYOND the diad existence/nonexistence. This will is indestructable, even void cannot affect it. This much is NOT speculation.

Jan 24

There is a natural and necessary condition preceding everything. That condition is nothing: absolute absence of being – or even of concept such as a necessary precondition. No thought or act. But an act DOES happen. The condition of nothing is shattered and there is everything. There is. Thee is the time of is. There is somewhere for everything to be and finally there is a condition that is where there was void. Those four conditions in one – the condition of existence are the logos – what existence and what it had to be before it was.

The existence was not an accident. Accidents do not happen in the void of all the thought or thing. Some force standing beyond the condition of void or even the possibility of void brought the moment when even void was negated and in that instant reversed the axis of impossibility/possibility. The force caused the first being – the axis of impossibility/possibility and brought being out of no-being at a time when time was impossible.

The existence and the time of existence follows a form – the axis of impossibility/possibility.

Jan 26

So therefore, we have, in this axis, the first FORM of things. Form exists as a THOUGHT, an understanding so therefore, the FORM of the axis impossibility/possibility was the beginning of existence and as a form it expressed the THOUGHT of creation-motion along the axis form impossibility to possibility. Remember the form of the axis, impossibility/possibility came into being, not as an accident but as a THOUGHT. Thought at this contemplative level, be it science or music implies INTENTIONALITY in summoning the parts together.

And then there is the decision to move from impossibility to possibility: to INSTANTIATE the form. The form already expresses existence in that it puts down the negation of negativity: void. Thus, in moving from impossibility (is-not) to its negation (is) as an INTENTION a new form is brought into being: what ‘is’ means.

When intentionality in creation is discussed, the term summons humanlike consciousness. It summons synonyms and antonyms. We immediately conceive – because the intentionality of conception is the basis of understanding – of PURPOSE and WILL. Does not INTENDING to do something, mean the same as having the PURPSE or WILL to do something? Immediately that intentionality or purpose or will assumes a point of being. A consciousness that is unsurprisingly quite…rather…human. How could will or purpose have any reality WITHOUT something like that?

Jan 27

The thrust of natural philosophy or ‘science’ since the seventeenth century, has been to find reasons for the apparent behavior of matterthat arises from attributes in forms of matter itself. This conceptual approach is probably influenced by Aristotle’s causal explanation for objects in nature, particularly the efficient cause and the telos, efficient cause in reasoning on nature has everything to do with force and motion. Telos deals with expected outcomes of matter effecting matter in conditions of relative motion, like eg a smoke chamber.

Aristotle’s notion of matter taking, ‘forms’ or being distinct KINDS of things, marked by distinct attributes underlies scientific reasoning as it evolved from the late 15th and 16th centuries into the 17th, the beginning of the period we call the ‘enlightenment.” Since then, science has altered the perception of reason to exclude any reasoning that is not founded upon scientific research and principles. But of course, reason has a history far deeper than science.

Outcomes in careful thinking depend on the observations that are accepted as beginning points: so-called, ‘first principles.’ That matter can be broken down into kinds or forms. These forms not elementary but composites of kinds or forms of particles of lesser mass, all of which are subject to motion and principles based on attributes that are hidden from direct observation such as energy and force, is a reasonable way to think about what is. But in the final analysis, this is a mistaken way. What you come up with, in the end, is what you started with.

The idea that intentionality must be attributed to some being with superior powers, leads ultimately to speculation on what that intentionality might teleologically represent and what the nature of that being might be and if its intentionality might be favourably altered has given rise to the idea of Gods or God and the theology of intentionality. The discovery of superior beings like the discovery of cause and effect, were discoveries of the intuition, not logic.

This is not to say that intuition is innately wrong – it’s a form of short-circuiting the process by quick summary of premises and may or may not contain errors. The argument that existence arises out of a process of intentionality that can only be conscious, is a first principle. The axis impossibility/possibility led to the INTENTION toward possibility, which in turn led to the creation of time and existence is to suggest that the form had a proto-existence BEFORE its discovery.

Is this is true, could intentionality then have been an initial accident? Yet, how could it be true? Void, (impossibility) is the natural order, ensuring that nothing form or physical instantiation of form, can present itself to disturb the condition of void. But form and instantiations of form exist and could only do so if a non-accidental agent could overcome the natural order. The creation of time and of existence is counter-natural. To speak of void is to assert the proposition that nothing exists without a cause.

If there is nothing to CAUSE existence, the natural order – void – will remain. Therefore, since there is time and existence, there is a cause BEYOND the natural order that REPLACES the natural order. The premise that existence represents the natural order is an assumption that is made out of the delusion that both time and existence are ongoing when in fact that are inseparable and occur in bursts of minute duration, each occurrence separated from that previous and from the next.

The duration of the interval of void between such burst of the counternatural condition of existence cannot be known because in the NATURAL condition of void time does not exist. This might prompt the argument that if this is to, then there could be no interval of ANY duration between instances of time and existence and therefore they must be continuous. But if this were true, five minutes ago would be NOW or five minutes into the future. What was yesterday both yesterday and tomorrow would be EXACTLY what is today.

If time were like a river and did flow continuously as though it were a whole and that the moment of ‘now,’ were just a small part of the whole, like water of a river flowing over a dam. Then some argument could be made that time and existence were always there and that there was no CAUSE of existence because it is the natural order. But it isn’t so. The only time that is, is, ‘now’ and what comes before and after is what is naturally there but is replaced for an instant by a NEW time and a NEW existence.

Thus the natural order, void, is momentarily interrupted. Such an event must necessarily be CAUSED and not accidental. (see above).

More To Follow Of This Investigation of Existence

Leave a Reply

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