Unpublished Words From Elsewhere 87

(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 12

This enquiry into time and being has led thus far to the following conclusions:

  1. Time and existence happen in brief, coming out of nothing and returning to nothing
  2. Time and existence do not cause themselves nor are they accidental.  They are the effect of an intentional (that is to say, conscious agent) which stands outside time and existence and the absolute nothing they momentarily replace in a succession of inert states. The universe is determined as an intended construct of ongoing creation.
  3. Change, motion, force are interpretation of state-change.
  4. Consciousness is given into created forms of matter to make them living matter.
  5. Consciousness is a process of acts, not material but acting on matter. This process is slower to complete than the series of states of time and existence it experiences and is therefore independent of the succession of state of time and existence in judgment, understanding and contemplation but not in intentionality.
  6. The world of physical objects is a construct of conscious interpretation and selection of perceptia.  There may exist other worlds in time and existence.  The world commonly interpreted as reality both in science and every day life in policed by the consensus of the social world.

Sub 4):  Matter is necessarily inert in time and therefore cannot cause or affect another state of change in its own state.       Therefore matter cannot experience or think.

Sub 5):  How can understanding be free but intentionality not?  Technically this condition is impossible.  Both understanding and intentionality are modes of consciousness.  Therefore, if one is constrained or limited, so is the other.

States of existence themselves are inert since change within a state involves a new time N and therefore, the passage of the existing N into void and existence with  it.  N represents the least period of duration possible.  Consciousness however, is an act within a state that lasts the duration of N, an act of knowing itself as existing and knowing the configuration of the neuromaterial state of the brain as perceptia.

The form of consciousness at N is the elemental form of the intentionality of cause given into loci of place at N. Q does not express the whole intentionality of cause.  Because it is local, it is limited to an expression of only a part of the intentionality of cause.  Because it is limited to existence, it cannot affect change in a state.

Q in process of succession of N transubstantiates the matter of the brain into information in the form of a cloud of perceptia which it fishes through selecting perceptia to compose ‘objects,’ which are translated back into synapses in the brain relating to memory.

The construction of conceptual objects is overseen by the social world, except in deviations in the pattern of the brain and also hormonal and genetic effects which alter either the substance of translation between Q and the neurophysiological configuration or inhibit the otherwise usual course of neural transitions.

Q is therefore, greatly dependent on the material body it is given into, in order to construct a narrative of reality.  When Q ‘leaves,’ the epistemic self to interact through the mediation of the brain with the world of physical existence, it builds a picture of the self as integrated into physical reality: the antic self.

The ontic self becomes more and more constrained by the narrative of ‘reality.’  Since the processes of translation between matter and consciousness and developing judgment and understanding of events as much slower than the succession of states of existence being given or cause at N, consciousness though supported and limited by the brain/body.

This  is a condition of being an awareness of a reality that is in fact not of the current state of world existence, but a recollection of the immediate past.   This includes actions of the body undertaken by the conscious will. But world states, including bodily states, are only caused by the creating agent of N(+W).

Therefore the intention to cause the body to act in such and such a way, is not given to consciousness in existence but retained by the cause of existence alone.   But bodily action appears to be always in accord with conscious will. However, bodily action is always performed as part of a series of states N(+W) that are always created before the formulation of the will of C to act.

Therefore, the intentionality of C is pre-determined and if intentionality is a mode of consciousness, then, therefore, consciousness is pre-determined.  But psychologically it doesn’t appear that way because our awareness of things is of things in the immediate past. A memory. A story.

April 13 (Wandering in the wilderness. Again).

Consciousness is an act at N.  The act of consciousness is knowing or understanding when itself is a result of selection or judgment of categories simple or complex.  These categories form the base of conceptia.  Judgment, the act of understanding runs throughout the process.  The act of understanding itself is immaterial, but refers to the matter or stuff of the environment with which it shares a locale.

Consciousness can do this because it is not extended as is matter.  Therefore, it does not displace nor is displaced, by matter.  Consciousness understands matter in terms of the categories, ‘part’ and ‘whole,’ or ‘disunity,’ and ‘unity.’ Consciousness understands the information it translates from the physical environment via the states of its nervous system or in the case of single-cell protozoa, the entire body as parts of a conceptual whole.

The understanding judges a few of these perceptual signals as information of an ‘object.’ This is the kind or simple category of which it judges or decides on.  This ‘object’ may or may not be like something in the environment of its nervous system. The understanding has the potential to be mistaken in its interpretation of the physical environment, proximate to its locale.

The consensus of the social world sets it right on that score, usually.  But the social world, in fact, ‘other selves,’ are also conceptia judged into categories of intentionality by the understanding and therefore the formation of reality is a broadly circular process.

The ‘other selves,’ guiding the judgmental process of a consciousness, whose body/brain is neurophysiologically distorted, are going to be judged from perceptia not normally given and may be objects that have no reference in the physical world.

If the act of consciousness Q at N is indeed given into existence, it is probably given as intentionality, a primitive form of protein-gathering survival consciousness always includes intentionality. It also involves understanding in a varying range of sophistication.  It may, in mammals, include contemplation.

Clearly understanding, which deals with categorization of physicalia, as well as conceptualization, may be wrong. The give-ness of truth and falsity itself may be determined along with states of consciousness that are intentional.  But contemplation includes the activity of studying one’s own understanding.

It is purely conceptual and does not necessarily always result in a judgment or an interaction.  There are the intentionality’s – intentionality is always intentionality: the intentionality that gives rise to existence in the first place.  The intentionality that is given as an act at N at numerous locales in existence, at least on our planet.

In causing existence as a state primary intentionality, D includes in that sate inert moments of change in locales that in the succession of N(+W), will (or would) appear to an observer as motion in a fashion similar to still frames of a motion picture reel. Some of the motion in locales in which consciousness has been given, would appear to be acting under the impulse of local intentionality.

But in fact, these actions are the playing out of states over the succession of N.  Now there may be intention in the locale’s consciousness to perform with its body, just such an act.  But the intentionality of a locale, is always a process of interaction between Q and a brain and nervous system, over a number of Q.

Here in fact, the action is always a result of state change over N.  The action is always a result of state change over N.  The state change thus achieving the action, can only be caused by the intentionality of D, never by the intentionality of consciousness as a process of Q within state change.

Because state change is faster than the process of Q/N to intend and maintain the action, the action is actually achieved well before the awareness of it beginning and being maintained over N.

Therefore, either:

a) D anticipates C’s intentionality before the intention is complete


b) D has predetermined not only C’s action but C’s intentionality as well.

Time is a condition that doesn’t apply to D. Time and the existence of time as a form of being are caused by D.  Therefore, when we talk about predetermination, we can’t refer to specific intentions of D to create given states. Accepting a) would imply that D is intending within the context of N; to accept b) would suggest that the succession of determined states has been established and runs its course almost independent of D, which did the determining.

But D is the cause of each state of existence out of void.  Therefore each emerging state is a NEW world.  The old world has been annihilated or devoured by void.

Therefore, D must act for each N(+W), independently of the succession as a while.

Therefore, D must either :

a) Anticipate C’s intentionality


b) Create C’s intentionality.

If a) were the case, C would, in fact, be causing D to act in N(+W) according to C’s will in which case, it is C that determines state change at N, rather than D.  Moreover, within existence, it would be possible, yea likely, to have many C’s in conflict over the nature of the next state.

Both of which considerations seem to me to be highly unlikely.

Therefore, c) must be case: Q’s intentionality is given with it, into existence at N.  This is supported by and supports the proposition that consciousness is elementary D in N(+W).  Therefore it is not an independent act. But then does this mean that since intentionality is a form of consciousness, then consciousness itself is an elementary member in place of D?





Leave a Reply

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