An Investigation Into Time & Existence 75

(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)

Feb 9

The building of the ontic self is the process we call learning and growing.  The epistemic self is, of course, the base of the ontic, which builds through learning categories – simple at first: nouns and imperatives going on to the judging and separation of categories into groups of conceptia.  The growth of the understanding and the brain’s function of memory as configurations of neural pathways which are at an early age first translated into the knowing of the self’s environment and then relegated later to automatic physical responses stored in the neural configurations and activated in the body by cues – tiny changes in neural states given at N to Q.

The ontic self assimilates ‘reality’ from its social environment and becomes more and more a part of that reality, more and more a part of the world, accepting its categorical/conceptual structure and storing it as memory: conceptia all – including concepts immediately recalled on perceptual cues by Q from the brain that represents what is going on in the environment called, ‘physical,’ about it.

But, of course, what is ‘physical,’ by now is highly structured, learned conceptia.  The initial jumble of perceptia the infant first experiences is pretty nearly gone and the jigsaw of reality has replaced it.  But reality, including physical objects is no longer objective.  That is to say, whatever is truly physical about the world, has become all conceptia.  |The physical has become internalized as the epistemic self’s, ‘known.’  Berkeley was right.

The rock that Dr Johnson booted across the road was really not a rock – whatever that is – but a ‘perception,’ which is to say, a concept: a kind of ‘thing,’ that has no reality beyond a categorized kind of something summoned by perceptual cues.

The basis of reality to the ontic self is threefold:

1) The act of being as awareness of the logos given into N(+W) as Q.  Being in existence is an act, not a thing of stuff.  This is of utmost importance.  Many Q go to form the understanding.

2) Memory of the categorical structures of conceptia organized by the understanding and stored as neural configurations insert at N to be transformed into knowing by Q.

3) Perceptia as cues for the activity in #2

The ‘death line’ is the differentiation between the epistemic self and the ontic self.  The social world in which the ontic self is resident, is reality only insofar as it is consensual.  The rules upon which this reality is largely based are the principles of  observations and resulting hypotheses of science, primarily the ‘hard’ physical sciences expressed in terms of mathematics.

Reality is essentially what is observed or what is soundly inferred from observation and in a theoretical construct largely determined by consistencies in the behavior of matter or ‘laws.’ As a first principal, matter is believed to possess attributes expressive of force and motion which in themselves are not observables but rather are inferred from position in bodies over time and from their apparent quantitative effect upon other bodies.

E.G. A needle expressing weight of a bag of potatoes on a scale would be an good example. In this case, a second first principle of scientific thought is introduced: ’cause and effect.’

Feb 10

In the ontic self, consciousness is in continuous engagement with the body, which is to say with physical existence.  In earlier life, the stream of N bears with it, Q, which transforms the neural configurations of chemical reaction to the physical world they are part of, into perceptia, which, in turn, are at first learned as categories from the social world.  This learning of categories is a complex of perceptual selection and judgment.  A secondary process then, demands new future neural configurations in inert brain states that will be later again recalled by Q as memory.

Here there is a small diagram:

It is becoming apparent that perhaps we, in today’s global culture, may not know the true world or if there is such a thing.  The epistemic self as ontic self, knows a world, a world of historically consensual selection of kinds of things and categories that the mass of perceptia represent – the ‘social world.’  But it may be thee are other ways of fitting perceptia together, that we, from our earliest beginnings as humans or proto-humans, may have missed.

The venerable epistemological problem of how we know any of our conceptia or schools of conceptia, represent the ‘real’ world or not, isn’t going to be likely soluble by employing more of the historical body of conceptia.  When I suggest that Q is given into ‘physical existence,’ as intentionality transformed by the logos into consciousness, am I not really stating that the ‘physical existence of which the logos is the ground, is, in fact, the historically constructed, ‘social world’?

However, given the creator of the epistemic self, is there any compelling reason to believe that realities other than the social world, are absolutely impossible?

Feb 17

The social world is manipulated by those who construct it for the aggrandizement of their ontic selves.  The epistemic self is free but the ontic self is bound.  The ontic may return to the epistemic only through enhancement of the understanding. (or, of course, death).

Feb 18

The demiourgos is the agent, the causative principle of change. It may even be, but impossible for us to know, the reason for existence: change, that is.  In order for change to happen, there must be some thing that can be changed.  It could even be ‘play’ principle: in order to have something that would return to you once you threw it, you have to conceive of and fashion, a boomerang.  In the case of the ontic self, death is the final change.

Feb 19

The ontic self is really the epistemic self in disguise. The epistemic self has been given as a particle of creational intentionality into existence, at least one form of existence: physical existence. But intentionality is an incipient form of consciousness.  As a particle and not the whole of creational intentionality entering into existence, it recognizes the logos –  the ‘form’ of existence and thus recognizes its own existence as the act of recognizing and what is recognized, (in this case, itself), as recognizer or knower.

To get this far, Q – incipient consciousness – is in existence.  The existence it is in, has the form of being, time, place and change.  So being in existence, it must occupy place.  But since it is not itself physical stuff (which also occupies place in a plenum), it does not dis-place any physicalia, which is to say it is not extended.  It occupies a locale of place which is also a locale of stuff, which is extended.

Q must suffuse the physical existence that it goes into the act of creating.  But it would not form a plenum as does physicalia.  It is not extended.  It is in existence as part of the creating act, possibly rendering ‘reality’ as a quality to existence.  In those forms of physicalia that have been developed to receive it, it is, what we call, ‘life.’  Q is intentionality that expresses being throughout the physical plenum.  But in living matter, it becomes a self with a conscious will to preserve itself in the physical world.

Q is thus differentiated in place from this underlying Q of creation at N by recognizing the logos and becoming a self – a knowing/known.  So therefore, is it most likely that when the ontic self loses its body in death, that the epistemic self, (which is really the ontic self, dressed in the costumery of the social world) – is lost as well?

Put another way – how dependent is the epistemic self on a body? Is it really in the end undifferentiated Q lying as a substratum of existence at N?

In Review:

  1. Existence is created or caused as an interruption of void
  2. The consistent nature of at least physical existence argues for intentionality D.
  3. Only D and C act at N
  4. Therefore, C which acts only locally, must be a limited form of D.
  5. Since D’s intentionality appears consistent, the creation of stuff in which C is expressed must mean that C is intended to be given in particular as a self.
  6. But C is a limited form of D.
  7. Therefore, each self must be a particular instance of D – intended by D to be such.
  8. Therefore, the epistemic self, as D’s intentionality may be preserved because that intentionality is the intentionality to maintain being.

Being in existence for the epistemic self is as suggested above, not a thing but an act of:

a) Recognition of the logos

b) Transforming physical states into knowing

c) Recollection of previous states

d) Setting up future local states

e) Understanding and judging perceptia and conceptia

f) Anticipation of state change

At least these types of acts.  But how can an act be a something with continuity from N to N

More To Follow Of This Investigation of Time and Existence


Leave a Reply

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