Unpublished Words From Elsewhere 82

(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)


Mar 20 (Continued)

The epistemic self is composed of Q that became aware of existence through the logos. This happens in place and in a community of living cells there is a multitude of place.  Thus this renders each point in place as an epistemic self, composed of Q at N – albeit an epistemic self that is very primitive. The body is a complexity of quasi – independent  functions, all to some extent, drawn into co-ordination by the neural cells of the nervous system and the brain.

Chemical communication between the brain and the rest of the community, takes many states given at N.  Translation both ways of inert brain states at N by Q of material configuration into information and the reverse, takes a great number of successive N; the formation of perceptia into conceptia and the interpretation of these.

This is a process that involves the epistemic self transferring through interpretive recognition of the ‘reality’ of the social world, taking a multitude of P/N and finally the intentionality of judging the current conceptia of this reality as physical presence and contemplation of action emerging as the final will to perform an act in the perceived physical world requiring yet many, many more acts of Q at N.

This simple intention to write these words, involves a time consuming complexity of processes, the last stage of which – the writing – is made from the process of recalling conceptia of what the world was, many N past, which is perceived as the present.

Q is likely the intentionality of D in creating a state of time and existence entering into that state in place and recognizing itself as existence separated by place from the rest of existence.  Q is an act at N.  It is a part of the creational act N(+W) and therefore a member of the unity of creation, D.

So therefore, all interpretation of the self as it is composed of D in place, is an act Q, a dis-unified part of the unity of D.  But the epistemic self, which is the totality of Q/N in place is maintained as that relationship by D which cause also brings about the state of existence in that place at N(+W), including the configuration of the inert matter of the brain/body.

By the time C makes a decision to act, that act is already well under way.  But the contemplation of that act is ongoing.  Therefore, action to change the state of existence is predetermined but intent and subsequent contemplation of that act is free. That is because all contemplation and intentionality of C is of the past as recall, but not in the past, because the present – real time – is only N.

In a sense, Q, as a small element of dis-unified D is D as cause, meeting a particle of its effect in the brain/body.

Is existence, strictly and solely, physical?

The self in its ontic mode knows conceptia derived from the perceptia that Q translates from the inert state of the brain/body at N.  In short, C has no direct knowledge of any physical world beyond information of a transubstantial sort, which even itself, is not necessarily information about a concept, generally known as a ‘brain.’

It is possible that perceptia is merely information about itself – a composition of the epistemic self’s environment of the ‘known.’ The ‘physical world,’ including the social world, may be but a delusion. Arguments from observation and experience are circular.

Much perceptia at N is discarded in the process of category-formation.  There is no convincing argument for the proposition that there are no modes of existence other than physical when we cannot be certain any mode is physical.

Mar 22

Real or absolute time cannot be measured because time is measured by change of distance between points.  But change of distance is accomplished over change of world states, each at the instant N of absolute time, but in order to know the numbers of N covered over any distance we have to know the duration of N.

But N is limited by the boundaries of void between each presentation of N and void cannot be measured as there is no time of existence in void.  N may be inconsistent in duration. If the epistemic self is composed of Q/N entering existence in place and if Q is of the same substance as D (cause), ie, act at N (as opposed to inert matter at N, then Q and therefore the epistemic self.

1) Originates outside of existence and although it is in existence, is not of existence but is sustaining by itself as an element of cause, D.

2) As act, is in existence in N only but remains act through every successive N and does not become anything over N but act.  There is no change in its essential nature.

But on the other hand, there is no change in the essential nature of stuff either, just change over N in form and density in place.  The epistemic self, though, undergoes no change in anything.  It is just act.

But the epistemic self given into place at N must be no more than a raw burst of logos recognition of existence and itself as existing.  To expand its knowing of the world of physical existence it must be given into a form and density of the plenum of physicality: a ‘body,’ that comprises a community of molecules prepared to receive and depend on the epistemic self to become its ‘life.’

Thus the symbiotic nature of life – conscious self and supporting body.  The ontic self is built through Q of the epistemic self, ‘knowing,’ its body as acts Q/N of transubstation between inert matter and the bifurcated act of knowing that composes the epistemic self.

But over N, cells begin to break up when they cease to receive Q. The ontic self which as been constructed through the retention of memory in its chemical configuration every N, must also disintegrate as cell-by-cell its body/brain on which it depended in loses its molecular coherence.

The epistemic self remains in place – which is a condition of existence not necessarily occupied by physicality, but the epistemic self has lost the physical world with its loss of the brain/body, whose configuration as a part of it provides the ‘coda’ for the knowing of categories and conceptia the epistemic self requires, to become ontic.

The third occlusion – death – dictates that we ontic selves who know only physicality cannot know anything other than physicality.  Because all knowing requires a known – an object and all objects of the ontic self’s knowing are conceptia, based on interpretation of brain states at N and recall at N of the categorical structure of these conceptia: an interpretation of perceptia we call, ‘physical.’

So the ontic self dissipates and the epistemic self is left only at N, knowing that it knows at a source of knowing itself as object.  Nothing more.

Unless   —————>

1) The epistemic self is at this point given a new physical brain/body.

2) There are other modes of existence given at N which the epistemic self may be given into

Or perhaps the epistemic self is withdrawn entirely from place at N and returns to the unity of its substance: the cause, creator, the Demiourgos.

As the epistemic self selects and orders perceptia into learned categories and then translates the resulting conceptia into inert material bodily configurations at N.  It builds the ontic self – the self whose understanding acts in the social world which provides the categories that form its basis.

But the epistemic self has entered existence in place, beginning (it shares substances with) as dis-unified cause separate from other epistemic selves.  Having separated intentionality its judgments of understanding are unique to it, and are bound to differ.  this likelihood is reinforced by emotional perceptia it translates of its own body configuration frozen at N.

Bodies are part of the plenum of physicality given at N, differing in subtle chemical composition and internal relationships each with the others in varying degrees and only higher life forms are chemically-complex enough to represent configuration that could be translated into significant emotional perceptia.

These perceptia are mostly not categories as they tend to be more subtle and amorphous than perceptia that can fairly readily be sorted into kinds of objects that are learned as physical.  But background and perceptia can be carried with perceptia of physicalia in such a way that Q interprets perceptia in ways that somehow alter the epistemic self’s judgment.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————–

This seems to suggest a hidden causal principle within existence  at N.


It would also seem to suggest that configurations present in mood, change the nature of the act of Q.

Mar 23

All acts of judgment, contemplative understanding, perceptual selection, recall and intentionality, are initiated by the epistemic self as Q/N.  Thus they are also acts of the cause, D, but indirectly, because the epistemic self, though it is of the substance, D, it has been particularized in place at N that D has created.  So the epistemic self’s understanding and will is isolated from all other epistemic selves.

The social world acts as a coercive mechanism through the development of conceptual structures that carry with them, organized reality.  The ontic self is set up through the act (s) of transubstantiating matter (brain/body), into conceptual information of being in the past and anticipation of the future – the continuity of self.

But the epistemic self does this: the ontic self cannot act.  The ontic self is the epistemic self’s selected persona in the drama of being.

Only the epistemic self can act within existence.

But an act of Q is an act that bears with it, the component of intentionality.  Thus as N, the epistemic self directs a will to the brain/body to recall the ontic self.

The epistemic self does not intend random actions.  It has a focus on its ontic being – being in social reality.  The epistemic self must constantly be in a condition of translating the configuration of the body/brain into memory of its ontic self which, because only the epistemic self as knower/known can interpret and give meaning to it.

The epistemic self is Q recognizing the logos and through that act, itself.  It is the knower that knows itself first and then perceptia and categorizes perceptia ultimately creating a conceptuality of existence in the physical mode.  This translation of matter into perceptia or conceptia is an act that renders not a physical code such as writing.  But an object of the self’s knowing: knowing to known (object) is an immaterial act – an intentional act of the epistemic self.

It is not accidental if it were, we’d be a planet of idiots, from bacteria on up.  It wouldn’t take very long for us all to starve to death if we ever got developmentally underway.  The act of knowing does not change the configuration of the brain at subsequent N.  The epistemic self receives the information it seeks out and translates it into state-change not as cause because the epistemic self’s intentionality operates well behind N in the past as recall (Mar 20).

The only cause of state-change is D. This state-change contains a reconfiguration of the body/brain as storage of conceptia. The reason the epistemic self cannot cause state-change is because the epistemic self is given as Q at N and acts only at N and therefore cannot change a state within N. Only D can present a new state.

But the point of the argument is that the Ep Sf (Epistemic self) in order to translate the configuration of the body/brain into object (known), it must have some knowing of self in relation to a specific something to be known.

Therefore the EpSf through contemplative building of the ontic self, appears to build an intentional awareness of a self that reflects on objects added to the objectification of its act of knowing.  The EpSf expands its environment within the context before the death line.

Mar 24

This is sketchy speculation.  But no consciousness occurs without neural activity which is to say, change in states of existence. If consciousness actually causes these states locally in the body, then there is a case to be made for something like limited natural evolution, ie, states being brought about as effects of activity within an existing state at N.

If this is true, then it would explain occlusion #2 – how consciousness can seem to effect bodily action.  But there would remain the question of causation of a state or a series of cause – and -effect as a distance, eg lifting an arm to turn on a switch that sends a current through a filament (or led crystal) that lights up a room.

Such algorithms offer a more potent explanatory theory. Problem is, how can one state affect a state that does not yet exist?   Acts of Q occur within the context of a state, (N), limited by non-existence.  States remain discrete in sequence.  The occlusion remains: there can be no physical activity without a corresponding change of N.  States are inert.

Q is act and shares that attribute with the act that brings about existence N(+W).  It would seem to suggest that although Q is particularized D at N, its intentionality in at least part, retains unity with D.   Hitherto it has been proposed that existence is caused by an agent, D, that is intentional and acts from beyond both void and existence.  That is, D is not subject to the logos conditions of existence and therefore does not occupy any place.

Despite this premise, it is difficult to conjure up a mental picture of the possibility of a cause of place not itself existing in a place.  Such is the limitation of our mode of consciousness in physical terms: there is this agent being somewhere outside of a box which oscillates between absolute nothing and time and existence.  In other words, we ascribe at least two attributes of the logos to it.

MORE TO FOLLOW OF THIS INVESTIGATION OF EXISTENCE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 Comments


  1. Looks like you’ve gone in one great big circle. Or to put it another way you entered the maze looking for the prize in the centre but instead just popped right back out where you started. Darn!!!! That’s not a criticism just an observation. Happens to a lot of explorers. Maybe try a different compass. ?


  2. You have detected curiosity of consciousness and being. There is indeed an epistemic circularity in the journey. I’m quite pleased, personally, that you noticed this. Like scientific inquiry, which is based on perception, (or if you would prefer, experience), one must proceed further through derivation. There is unfortunately, no other compass. I’m happy you have noticed this circularity. I do not consider it a flaw but rather just that – a curiosity. The logos provides us with our only possible logical methodology. The only compass we have is our own consciousness. Thank you very much.


  3. Not to quibble but the particular compass that you have chosen to guide your construct appears to be your hypothesis N. It is present throughout. The trouble is this hypothesis has a couple of fatal logical flaws. One of which in particular leads inevitably to circularity.

    First flaw: This hypothetical state N either has the attribute of duration or it doesn’t. If it does then it is by definition divisible and so on to infinity. Which means that this hypothetical N “ultimo” is a state that can never be achieved. If on the other hand N doesn’t have the attribute of duration then it must come into being at the same moment that it goes out of being. Or, to put it another way, it both exists and doesn’t exist at exactly the same time. This is a pure logical fallacy. Hence a fail.

    Second flaw: This “discrete” hypothetical N necessarily negates material cause and effect along with free will. Big problem. How then does one explain the nature of reality absent these important and apparent attributes? Well philosophers (and theologians) as they are wont when confronted which such imponderable and troubling questions often like to invent a god (or gods) to fill the void. Although completely lacking in proof either logical or material they then assign incredible powers to this god in order to resolve their problem. Such is the case with your demiurge D. This may be comforting but it’s only a trick. A deception. A gimmick. A piece of whimsy. Your invented demiurge D doesn’t solve the problem of time and causality. It merely avoids it. Temporarily. Hence the circularity.

    In closing I would suggest that your hypothetical N is like that darn shopping cart with a squeaky wheel that keeps pulling to the right. As long as you use it you’re doomed to keep looping around between the frozen food and potato chip aisles. Better to try a new cart.

    P.S, Looks like I’m off to another galaxy many light years away so I’ll sign off until I reassemble there in a workable form. Might take some time if ever. Never know about these thing out here in the far distant cosmos.


  4. If a condition of duration is expressed as an inert state, then no division of that state is possible. Otherwise, the state would cease to be inert but would undergo change from one state to another. Thus, it appears that time exists as an unchangeable inert state with duration of an extremely short period but not infinitely so. This is a condition of time and existence, not a ‘definition.’
    We experience time. Therefore it exists because our experience is, in fact, the root of being. We experience being as rational, that is, understandable. Therefore it is subject to an orderly expression of existence in the physical mode: ‘the laws of physics,” which Einstein proposed, must exist throughout the universe if the measurement of (even) ‘relative time,’ is to be at all possible.
    Intentionality is not absolutely, ‘proved.’ By such rationality-ordered presentations of inert states appearing from and exiting void as time and existence but consider: How likely would this occurrence be the result of chaos or randomicity? The more rational conclusion is that existence itself is not the result of chaos but is rather common, commensurate with what we refer to as our capacity of ‘understanding.’
    Thus, intentionality is, if not, ‘proven,’ at least strongly and most rationally surfeited. This intentionality is what I mean by, ‘Demiourgos.’ Our understanding of existence and the brief moment it is presented in, is mediated by four interimplicatory metacategories: being, time, place and change. I call these necessary categories , the ‘logos,’ partly after Heraclitus, who suggested it as the tension between opposition in all things.
    The relation between time and existence on one hand and consciousness on the other is epistemically a necessary expansion wherein the negation of either would by modus tolens, negate the entire relationship and therefore consciousness itself. It may also be the case that what we call the ‘cosmos,’ may, as an idea of experience be anthropocentric. Cause and effect is indeed an illusion. Determinism is almost (excepting contemplative consciousness), complete, because existence is an inert state at N and must be expressed through void.
    I expect you will be doing some mountain hiking in your trip to distant galaxies. Have fun but be careful.
    Postscript: Your problem is (like physicists searching for a ‘time particle), you cannot get outside the box. Time is NOT a physical substance. Time is a condition which allows for the possibility of matter. Time, like being, has no attributes, including divisibility, once and for always – to be followed on annihilation b a NEW time and a NEW existence.
    The illusion of duration is a construct of experience and recall – that is to say, ‘continuous time,’ is a myth of ideation. Once gone, time is gone. But consciousness returns with a new configuration of matter with the new existence as isolated intentionality. But you are in good company. Thinkers from Spinoza to Einstein have made the same mistake.

Leave a Reply

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