(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)
Consciousness enters existence at N as an act that is coincidental with the act of creation itself. it therefore most probably part of that same act. It becomes part of the new state of the physical world, the universe or collection of universes which, as physicalia, exist as inert matter. But consciousness, as part of the creating act, is not matter and is not inert.
As part of the state of existence at N, consciousness becomes first aware of existence as self and the bi-partite nature of the self as knower/known. This is the primitive, irreducible state, Q, of consciousness which endures for only the duration of N. This act, Q and subsequent acts of Q, go to the building of contemplative awareness through categorization and conceptualization of perceptia.
It is, of course, much slower than the simple act of Q at N and requires a memory of the continuity of self. This memory is most likely presented as a brain configuration at N. This memory entails the act of Q engaging the physical environment with which the brain is interacting chemically and electrically, translating the matter of neurons and synapses.
Consciousness, as we know it then, is an accumulative process as well as an interpretive one. To live and be alive in the moment, although at N we have incipient consciousness, Q, it is not the developed stage of contemplation. At this stage though it appears we are in the present, we are actually experiencing the past as memory but it to the present. But the duration of N is the only time there is.
When we formulate a concept that we suppose to be an object in the world around us, we are actually experiencing a memory accumulation of the world around us as we walk along. The object we are observing is the memory of a categorized concept, such as a stone.
Life and living are a construct of memory. Memories are learned selections of categories – a combination of perceptia and socialized learning. We live through expectation that the world is as we learned it. We expect it to be always there, a thing that endures in the present, past and future.
Expectation is, of course, little more than a narrative. But without it, we, as well as cats, pike and jumping spiders, could never function.
There are three occulsions, three theoretical blocks to knowing:
1) The conversion of matter to consciousness or ‘awareness’/’knowing.’
2) Given that states of existence are only caused by D – how can C seem to cause in the world?
3) Given that the epistemic self is of D – what happens to it after death of the ontic self?
These 3 occlusions appear to be the permanent blocks to absolute certainty that contemplative C cannot get past. It is a long journey of N from Q to the whole complexity of contemplative thought, the utmost freedom of the understanding. But this freedom of contemplative understanding is achieved through the ontic self – the memory Q in rapid succession delves up from the state of brain and body and the proximity of configurations of stuff about them.
The translation of stuff to Q at N is the information of perceptia – information to be interpreted in terms of categories and conceptia – interpretations of perceptia given by states of the brain that are not chemical alternations of the brain as part of the environment of stuff. But information in the neural status of the brain at N that Q intentionally refers to and translates into, the information of awareness.
This second type of perceptia is interpreted by Q over a succession of N (Q/N) as memory. Perceptia is the transition state of brain/body stuff into information. The brain/body is a code of raw information =stuff and information processed into perceptia of past categories , category structures. All of this transforming matter to information and back again occurs over a number of Q/N the magnitude of which depends on the complexity of understanding.
They are not causative acts although the intentionality of cause is present. But matter is only changed from beyond its existence by D. Therefore, if the intentionality of Q is free and not determined by D, then there must be some relationship between Q and D in which D largely assumes the internationalities of all the particularized (in place), epistemic selves in existence, from single -celled microorganisms to humans.
If there is no relationship of intent – and assumption by D, then the only possible alternative is that absolute determination of consciousness in thought and act by D. This latter proposition is supported by the earlier proposal that Q, incipient consciousness, is creational intentionality of D in N(+W).
In other words, the proposition reads, “every act of intentionality by every conscious being in W at N, is really a particularized act of intentionality of D.’ Or to put it another way – all our throughts and actions are absolutely determined. Intentionality is the most primitive form of consciousness. If Q is D’s intentionality in the creation of time and existence, particularized in place, which becomes an epistemic self through recognition of the logos, then that awareness of existence that is the base of the epistemic self simultaneously recognizes what exists as the awareness and what awareness is of.
This automatically sets the epistemic self apart from an environment of the self’s knowing or isolates the self from everything else in existence. In fact, the environment is a concept constructed from perceptia and is not believed to be real except as a dangerous force or potential food. As the ontic self is grown into the social world, the environment of knowing gradually becomes reified.
But the building of judgment and understanding, at least renders in the epistemic self, the belief that her acts of judgment, understanding and contemplation at least, are free. But belief does not mean truth.
In this paradox of being capable of false or possible false belief, in the capability of questioning belief and judging belief over and over gain, lies the freedom of contemplation, the highest mode of consciousness. From consciousness issues intentionality – the freedom of will.
So therefore, the first proposition (Mar 19), that there must be some relation of co-incidence between the causative intentionality of the ontic self – or more correctly, of the epistemic self, through its projection in the world, the ‘ontic’ self seems to be the most likely case.
There is, then, a case for freedom within a framework of determinism. D appears to comply with the will of the ontic self but in fact the ontic self is built of a multitude of Q/N incidental not only in the brain and nervous system but the entire community of living cells that is the entire body.
Some of these Q at given N, form the conceptia of the ontic self and the will to act. But this will is an accumulation of Q/N of a specific set of acts of Q. (Mar 20 continued on #82)
MORE TO FOLLOW OF THIS INVESTIGATION OF TIME AND EXISTENCE