(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)
April 2 (Continued)
It becomes evident that the question of determinism is complex. On the deterministic side, the world is presented as inert states at N. The densities and spatial relationships of the plenum of existence are all presented by D at N. There is no motion within states and no causal relation between states coming, present and gone.
All of existence, including the brain, is presented by D at N. Also the consciousness derives its perceptia primarily from brain state configurations at N. These perceptia are what the understanding must deal with in the construction of categories and conceptia.
On the freedom side, the consciousness enters into existence at N from the source, D. But consciousness is not material. It is most likely intentionality , as is D. Like D at N it is not inert matter or even form. It is a condition, act. Consciousness is free to judge perceptia and conceptia, to decide truth or falsity of these – and above all, it is free to be wrong.
Contemplation is the highest form of freedom given us.
If D commands existence, then D commands the states that produce the illusion of motion of the bodies of living beings. But the proposition is so counterintuitive as to seem convincingly absurd. The belief that we command our own bodies, our own actions are so ingrained in us that even if we ideologically deny the freedom of our will, insisting we are neurological automatons, we still do things like getting up and going to the fridge for a beer.
If, as I have suggested, consciousness, is elemental intentionality of D and can, therefore, through communing directly at N with D to achieve state change in the immediate future, it sounds rather like a point is being stretched.
There is a sense when this point in the project is reached (as it has not right) that existing in really a sort of gigantic drama, a cosmic morality play. Perhaps Shakespeare sensed the unwashed truth: all the world is indeed a stage – exactly that.
But for what purpose?
Who is the audience?
If I backtrack far enough, I reach the point where existence and time are presented in states like the still frames of a movie reel. I believe now that this is so, but that would entail that all our actions intended and not would fit into frames of the film in little frozen clips, that all our decisions to act as well as the actions themselves are absolutely determined.
That would leave us, each individual self of us, free only to think, observe, interpret and contemplate. Such would make us both the puppet actors of the drama and our own audience.
And whatever would the plot be?
The basis of a free consciousness is a free understanding. Freedom of the understanding necessarily implies freedom of choice in the judgment first of perceptia and then later, of conceptia. Ultimately though, the epistemic self builds the ontic self through the social world. It is the epistemic self, not the ontic self that is composed of Q.
The raw intentionality of D in creation at N. The ontic self is what is given to matter, is what is stored in the neurophysiology of the body. It is what fades when the structure of the body loses its composition in death. But through the choice of interpretation of matter, and of being a self in the onta of physical existence, the epistemic self that has received its identity through the logos of existence, slowly builds choice and understanding itself.
With the succession of Q/N, it builds not so much a place in physical reality and the social world, which will eventually be lost to it. But the ability to collect to itself the Q-intentionality that D gives into existence with each N. Through the knowledge of choice, judgment and understanding, the epistemic builds a self of knowing that doesn’t depend on matter but rather on learning to gather Q at N and choosing the interpretation of itself as an independent object of its choice of judgment, its knowing.
The place it learned to collect into Q/N is not the physical matter of space, but the place of the logos – essentially where it is. Itself. Q is the intentionality of D at N which, over the course of choice and interpretation – that is to say, the act of being – learns to become an enduring self.
This is not just a habit of being: it is a learning, a use of the understanding that involves pulling away from the ontic self and giving the intentionality of understanding over one’s lifetime, more and more to the meaning of the intentionality of D in giving time and existence at all in the first place.
Words alone are not enough.
>At N, cause D breaks void with existence W.
>D breaks void with the terms of existence, the logos:
These terms are the conditions in which existence is given as reality. But these terms are also forms or the condition of knowing existence. This knowing is the act of Q which upon knowing existence at logos, knows itself as two places: knower and known.
>N(+W) is the moment D brings existence out of the negation of void and therefore, N and W are expressions of D only where there was only void. So two things happen here, two acts:
- The causation of existence W at N
- The replacement of void.
In replacing void, void is negated by the only possibility becoming actuality, that could achieve this act as cause: D. So therefore, D as cause becomes in existence the only effect of the removal or interruption of void because D is the only possible thing that could negate negation itself.
>Therefore, D enters into effect as being and the intentionality of being that is a knowledge or the form of existence, the logos: Q
So therefore, all aspects of existence, including stuff or matter, contain in themselves the intentionality of the only thing that could replace absolute nothing. That is the very thing -D- that causes this interruption or replacement. But within existence, this intentionality, which is the initial form of consciousness resides in place as per the logos, which means it must be separated ‘here’ from ‘there.’
So existence can be thought of as composed of these two formal elements: ‘here’ and ‘there.’ You could think of the class of everything that is, ‘here’ as consciousness and the class of everything that is, ‘there,’ as the object of consciousness. But this means, at every point in place can be, ‘here,’ and every point can be ‘there,’ including the point that is ‘here.’
Which means, as Sartre points out (no pun intended), that consciousness of here can be ‘transcended.’ But the second consciousness, while it recognizes consciousness that is there, cannot be there as well, ie, it cannot, at the same time be object and conscious object.
So what then, is this secondary consciousness if it cannot be the self that is conscious of an object that is the consciousness of the self? If the answer is that this consciousness is indeed the consciousness of the self being conscious of the self being conscious, then we stand somewhat in danger of an infinite regression.
The reasonable answer is that the moment of consciousness of an object, Q/N, is not the same moment as Q/N but a following moment of X of N in which the moment Q/N is recalled:
MORE TO FOLLOW OF THIS INVESTIGATION OF EXISTENCE