Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: Consciousness and Self-Consciousness

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Online
    04-12-2018 @ 09:31 PM
    Location
    United States
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Germanic-Celtic
    Ethnicity
    German-Irish-Scot 1/8th Italian
    Ancestry
    Co. Mayo, Baden, Hessen Darmstadt, Rhine-Hessen, Berliner, Co Monaghan, Lower Saxony, and Co. Cork
    Country
    United States
    Region
    Lower Saxony
    Taxonomy
    Faelid+North Atlantid
    Politics
    Libertarianism
    Religion
    Master Morality/Prussianism
    Age
    21
    Gender
    Posts
    10,589
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 257
    Given: 0

    0 Not allowed!

    Default Consciousness and Self-Consciousness

    The difference between consciousness and self-consciousness lies within that which "mediates" them. This "mediation" is a form of consciousness and is that which is consciousness, that is not self-consciousness. That which separates the qualitative consciousness from "each other" can be located in the Self-Consciousness. This "uniqueness" of consciousness is determined within the consciousness which appears to us through the senses.


    It is also determined by the consciousness which strives to unify its "representations" with the objects of its senses in a quasi-rational way. That is to say the ends of a conscious synthesis is designed to designate and arrange the structure of the logical form of self-consciousness which is perceived through the intuition.


    The question is can the synthesizing of the consciousness create a formula or solution to fill in the "gaps" of self-consciousness which is determined by the shattered qualitative nature of consciousness. This shattered nature is determined within nature as an appearance and simply an appearance of consciousness from whence it arises as a causal form.


    This is to say the division between that which appears and that which does not lies within the self-consciousness, that is in what has the potential to be made conscious. This division is appointed and affirmed through the consciousness which seeks to represent the "multiple" forms of the self-consciousness.


    This division is constantly "dividing" itself through the nature of our consciousness. This "dividing" is a permeation of consciousness which is dynamic and fundamental to the fluxing of the consciousness. This "dividing" again seems to obstruct our capacity to become conscious of self-consciousness itself as an appearance.


    The appearance of self-consciousness is self-consciousness and that which "represents" self-consciousness in its totality, that is in its incompleteness. This incompleteness gives the illusion of itself being a completeness which is not complete but is simply consciousness. That is to say that which apprehends its own self-consciousness in relation and relative to other forms of appearance which are determined by our senses.


    In a sense our consciousness is responsible for determining self-consciousness both as that which "perceives" and is "perceived" "relative" to the disjunctive position of the observe compared to that which is consciousness.


    That is to say that which is self-consciousness. Self-Consciousness arises from it "multitude" of appearances but it does not necessarily mean that the consciousness of appearances or of appearance is determined by that which is self-conscious. This distinction is cardinal to understanding how and why consciousness exists as something which is simply a "function" of self-consciousness.


    Consciousness is essential to determining the necessity and logical sequences of self-consciousness that can be found in appearance. At this "locality" of consciousness though the illusion arises which causes the observer, that is the self-conscious agent, to believe that his consciousness of the nature of the object is simply consciousness.


    It is not simply consciousness but it is that which is self-consciousness and that which he consciously understands or distinguishes from that appearance is not self-consciousness. Here in lies the "problem" with consciousness and it is one which consciousness can solve, that is self-consciousness. A notable example would be the fact that I am conscious of being here and this thing over there.


    This type of consciousness is not consciousness as a mere conscious determination but is self-consciousness. The paradox is though that despite this without my consciousness I would not be able to determine this self-consciousness as being a consciousness of an appearance. It would likewise be impossible to determine both the empirical and transcendental form of self-consciousness without a determination of consciousness.



    A determination of consciousness which proceeds from our self-consciousness that is the representation of the appearance of reality in our minds. This determination does not necessarily accord itself in accordance with the laws of causality but it has a duty self-consciously to accord itself with to the maximum.


    But to only accord with it as consciousness that is as something which does not necessarily accord with the content of its apprehension. That said the content of apprehension qualitatively determines the qualitative and quantitative of consciousness, that is the other "appearance" which is a self-consciousness.


    This qualitative determination made by the transcendental I is a determining which is conscious of itself as a moral agent through appearance. It can not though merit anything as a dynamic force which fluidly interacts with itself and its other, that is consciousness, unless it is determined by that which it opposes.



    That is to say that which it determines through the multitude of appearances contained within itself. This "containing" is a containing of empirical facts, that is an empirical facts which are determined by a "unique set" of self-consciousness. It is a containing which is simply external and is determined through the necessary extension of things in space-time.



    These necessary extensions are an "extension" of that which is self-consciousness, that is time itself. Time itself as that which "contains" all consciousness and the possibility of such through appearance "contains" it on the basis it extends itself, that is to say is simply consciousness.

    This is to say the laws of causality which consciousness tries to accord itself with can only be determined as logical or understood through self-consciousness through the forms of consciousness in time. The mathematical and geometrical concepts of time can only be understood through space, which is itself a concept of time.

    Space is a therefore a given quality of time which is strictly quantitative, that is to say its constantly mediating between itself and that which it is not. This mediation is determined by self-consciousness which casts an illusion on it. The given nature of that which is quantitative makes it appear like a qualitative figure, when it is simply not, that is it represents itself simply as a form in space which appears to our senses.

    The permeation of the transcendental through the form only happens through the unique determinations of the form. This determination is not determined by consciousness but the dynamic qualities of that which is opposed to consciousness. It contains consciousness though as a consciousness which "understands" and "comprehends" itself through consciousness and in accordance with determinations of consciousness, that is self-consciousness.

  2. #2
    AstroPlumber arcticwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Online
    09-21-2014 @ 12:30 AM
    Location
    Space
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Ugric
    Ethnicity
    Hun
    Country
    Hungary
    Politics
    CommonSense
    Religion
    Direct Reality
    Gender
    Posts
    8,893
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 4,197
    Given: 3,880

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Wow that is long. I hate writing, it would take me forever to write that much.

    To the topic, consciousness is being aware while self consciousness is being aware of being separate from general consciousness. In other words there is existence and individual existence. To untrained mind consciousness appears solid and one piece, but that's not so as it can be observed to be false during deep contemplation/meditation. It actually is a a flow of consciousness moments. It works just like the matter one instance appears and almost immediately dies, and another arises but in such rapid succession that it seems perfectly solid. That implies that consciousness just like matter is impermanent. So what does that have to do with self at all? It just may be pivotal to understanding the gist of the mystery of existence, and more importantly how we can use it to benefit us in the ultimate sense. If both components of what we call life the matter and the mind are finite and processes then what's there that's essential? So let's go back to the issue at hand. Let's ask the really important questions, of what value is being aware and self aware? What is the real, the important task we are here for? I for one don't buy the Benevolent Ghost in the Sky with a plan theory. Why would perfection feel need or want? Feeling either one is a sign of imperfection, so the theory is really self defeating. So if not that then what? That's a whole another discussion. Let me leave you with this, what are you going to do when you are on your dying bed and you know that you have not done anything to really search for the answers, and your mind is as clouded as it was the day you were born or worse? Geist I veered off the topic a bit intentionally to take it in the direction it really needs to go to be the most beneficial, sorry. We will "attack" all the little side issues in due time. Geist theory in itself is fun to play with but it really is meaningful only when it has practical application and beneficial use. We will find both, I promise

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Online
    11-19-2012 @ 09:59 AM
    Meta-Ethnicity
    A Celto-Germanic-Manic ;)
    Ethnicity
    Thrones
    Taxonomy
    Bitch-oid
    Gender
    Posts
    2,266
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 18
    Given: 0

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Wow, for some odd reason I just KNEW this thread belonged to you by reading the title

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Online
    06-18-2012 @ 06:53 AM
    Location
    Portugal
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Southwestern
    Ethnicity
    Portuguese
    Ancestry
    Portugal
    Country
    Portugal
    Taxonomy
    Portuguese
    Politics
    Portuguese
    Gender
    Posts
    1,079
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 10
    Given: 0

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Geist Faust, have you been reading authors like Karl Jung or are you just exploring ontology on your own?

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Online
    04-12-2018 @ 09:31 PM
    Location
    United States
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Germanic-Celtic
    Ethnicity
    German-Irish-Scot 1/8th Italian
    Ancestry
    Co. Mayo, Baden, Hessen Darmstadt, Rhine-Hessen, Berliner, Co Monaghan, Lower Saxony, and Co. Cork
    Country
    United States
    Region
    Lower Saxony
    Taxonomy
    Faelid+North Atlantid
    Politics
    Libertarianism
    Religion
    Master Morality/Prussianism
    Age
    21
    Gender
    Posts
    10,589
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 257
    Given: 0

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    It took me like 30 minutes to write it all. It was a rough draft I decided not to get too technical but to keep it more broad and open. I felt like I would be defeating the purpose of such a thread by getting too carried up with the details.

    Consciousness is only consciousness when its conscious of its own self-consciousness. Self-Conscious is neither the consciousness of itself nor a proper negation but is merely an oscillating between states of mind. This is to say a dynamical union which is difference and is differentiating itself in the form of being and through it.


    Self-Consciousness is not necessarily mean you are separate from general consciousness since both coincide with each other in the context of reality, that is self-consciousness. Their coincidence does not always accord with the laws of the causality in a uniform way but its usually sporadic and undetermined. Consciousness shapes self-consciousness to a sense and without consciousness, that is self-consciousness, self-consciousness content is lost in a void.


    Consciousness is responsible for abstracting the form and content of self-consciousness, that is itself, and applying itself to itself and to its other which is a "mediation" of being. This application confines itself to that which is consciousness and and simply to this.


    This "confinement" determines the form of content of the transcendental form of consciousness which is self-consciousness. This is to say consciousness disappears as soon as utilize to abstract the "conscious" in the world and apply it the "conscious" or to its own state of being.


    Yes this is true things are separated into individual and general existence and these forms of existence take their positions in simply what is real. This is to reaffirm the standpoint Wittgenstein took when he said the world is all that is in case.

    The individual existence coincides with that which is general existence but does not allows follow upon the laws and the principles of that which is general existence. General existence is merely the collection of individual existences, so General existence is a plurality, a plurality which is self-consciousness and determines itself through it.

    To untrained mind consciousness appears solid and one piece, but that's not so as it can be observed to be false during deep contemplation/meditation. It actually is a a flow of consciousness moments. It works just like the matter one instance appears and almost immediately dies, and another arises but in such rapid succession that it seems perfectly solid.

    This is true to a sense consciousness is the flow of things as a dynamic intertwining between multiple states of being and states of existence. This succession of things is not to be confused with consciousness as I define it though. It does arise in the form of consciousness or that which appears to consciousness but which is merely self-consciousness in the form of consciousness.

    This means that the extension of self-consciousness is a given, that is consciousness, and that this consciousness is self-consciousness. The cardinal difference between itself and the other lies within itself, this being within something can only be within itself on account it simply exists in that which it extends itself to our senses.


    This means that we only can form self-conscious impressions of the world through that which simply extends itself in a public sense. All else means only as much as it relates to reality or what we can relate to reality of it through language. You pointed this out with your dream state statement. All consciousness is self-consciousness and is only possible on the grounds that self-consciousness exists.


    Likewise all self-consciousness exists simply within the extension of consciousness as a dynamical form force which allow for the potential of consciousness in that which is "consciousness."


    Consciousness is impermanent but its not simply a void either. Consciousness is impermanent on the fact that it exists in coincidence with a self-consciousness.

    It is that through which the fluid and dynamic announces itself and appears as form, that is that which is the content of all form. Its a thing through which time succeeds from one state to the other through different layers of existence and being.

    It does this all as a consciousness and by differentiating itself self-consciousness by consciousness and within its determinations. Consciousness is more then itself and that has yet to be spoken of it, but it is not for us to speak of, because it remains something which is shattered into a past tense.

    There might not be task perhaps we make it up as we go along and project our own meaning to things. We only do this to a certain extent because I believe in the process of synthesizing we are always trying to unify ourselves with concepts and meaning that are predetermined to an extent.

    I also think that which we suppose to be presupposed is changing and is simply that which changes that is its form and consciousness, that is content and self-consciousness. I think questioning the value of being aware of self-aware loses a point after a while, so we need to give it a limit or boundary.

    Its not necessarily a bad thing to do we just need to do it and keep reality in perspective in accordance with our interpretations of certain logical necessities such as supplying for our survival. I think we just need to try to keep in perspective with the reality as it presents itself around us. That is as it presents itself as time and self-consciousness, that is the constant succession of existence through that which is consciousness.




    It is all a bit self-defeating but we need to try to affirm that which aligns itself with our consciousness and instincts. We need to give our passions practicality and learn to enjoy life and live in the confines of a healthy medium. I don't think you need to think about such useless things about what you are going to do on your death bed or whether you have moved past some unanswered questions.


    Not everything can be understood because not everything can be understood, you understand what allows you to live a practical life that allows you to question things. At the same time you should learn that sometimes the only way we can settle certain fundamental questions is with another question which future generations can take into consideration.


    The questions originally arise out of the fundamental questions which we seek to answer but which we seem to have no adequate sequence of questions to solve. Its sometimes best not to chase certain things in a blind and nonsensical way but to confine yourself simply to that which is reality, that which is self-consciousness.


    The use or practicality of something depends on how you apply something and what you are applying to. Things are not always constant and neither should the way we use or apply ourselves to things be either. The world is dynamic and changing rapidly yet gradually to the point where its impossible to fix any true practicality to things, we can only approximate in so far as it appears to be logical.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Online
    04-12-2018 @ 09:31 PM
    Location
    United States
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Germanic-Celtic
    Ethnicity
    German-Irish-Scot 1/8th Italian
    Ancestry
    Co. Mayo, Baden, Hessen Darmstadt, Rhine-Hessen, Berliner, Co Monaghan, Lower Saxony, and Co. Cork
    Country
    United States
    Region
    Lower Saxony
    Taxonomy
    Faelid+North Atlantid
    Politics
    Libertarianism
    Religion
    Master Morality/Prussianism
    Age
    21
    Gender
    Posts
    10,589
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 257
    Given: 0

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zephyr View Post
    Geist Faust, have you been reading authors like Karl Jung or are you just exploring ontology on your own?


    I am just exploring things on my own, in accordance with some notable and not so notable works that I have read, and which were written by some relatively important people.

  7. #7
    Individualist Apricity Funding Member
    "Friend of Apricity"

    Svipdag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Online
    04-13-2019 @ 02:25 AM
    Location
    central Connecticut
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Ethnicity
    Norwegian & Yankee
    Ancestry
    Maternal: Norway Paternal: Massachusetts
    Country
    United States
    Region
    Connecticut
    Politics
    Conservative
    Hero
    Marcus Tullius Cicero and Nikola Tesla
    Religion
    agnostic
    Age
    87
    Gender
    Posts
    3,632
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 3,883
    Given: 1,005

    0 Not allowed!

    Default Is time a fundamental aspect of reality ?

    If one attempts to view time empirically, one quickly encounters a paradox. If everything which has not yet happened lies in the future, and everything which has happened lies in the past, what is the duration of the present ?
    Evidently, the answer is zero. THERE IS NO PRESENT.

    But, if there be no present, when does anything happen ? The present would have to be a dimensionless interface between future and past. Events would have to pass through that interface, into our consciousness, and, were it not for short-term memory, immediately out of it again. It is only our short-term memory which permits the illusion of the present to exist.

    But, we do things, and how can we act in the past, the realm of that which is over and done with ? If the present be but an illusion, there is no time for anything to happen or for us to do anything. If events pass through the
    infinitesimally thin interface between future and past, must they not already exist in the future not merely potentially, but actually ?

    This paradox has led me to reconsider what I mean by "happen". It seems to me that what I consider to be an event's "happening" is no more than my becoming aware of what already exists. If so, the future is not the realm of events which do not yet exist, but rather, of which I have not become aware.

    Time, then, would be an artifact of the way in which I perceive eternity,
    piecemeal, as viewed through a moving slit. Kant described time and space as modes of perception. They are parts of the world model which we have constructed from our perceptions. The world model is private and is not
    "das Ding an sich" which is the unknowable cause of the world model. Neither of these abstractions is necessarily part of the reality which exists outside our skins.


    Sternuo, ergo sum. - NOT René Decartes

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Online
    06-18-2012 @ 06:53 AM
    Location
    Portugal
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Southwestern
    Ethnicity
    Portuguese
    Ancestry
    Portugal
    Country
    Portugal
    Taxonomy
    Portuguese
    Politics
    Portuguese
    Gender
    Posts
    1,079
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 10
    Given: 0

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    And these are the threads/posts the reason why I have not left this forum.

    A balm for the mind. Humans are not completely lost yet.

  9. #9
    Individualist Apricity Funding Member
    "Friend of Apricity"

    Svipdag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Online
    04-13-2019 @ 02:25 AM
    Location
    central Connecticut
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Ethnicity
    Norwegian & Yankee
    Ancestry
    Maternal: Norway Paternal: Massachusetts
    Country
    United States
    Region
    Connecticut
    Politics
    Conservative
    Hero
    Marcus Tullius Cicero and Nikola Tesla
    Religion
    agnostic
    Age
    87
    Gender
    Posts
    3,632
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 3,883
    Given: 1,005

    0 Not allowed!

    Default The self and the non-self

    There is nothing fundamentally different between self-consciousness and consciousness, only the object of consciousness. Self-consciousness is but a special case of consciousness, namely that in which consciousness is directed to the self.

    But, then, how is the self differentiated from the non-self ? Primarily by will. It is in the exercise of one's will that one becomes aware of oneself as as a being having and using will to achieve one's individual ends. Ah, but others have will. How do we distinguish them from ourselves ? We are not directly conscious of the will of others; we INFER it from their behaviour.

    My will, on the other hand, is the CAUSE of my behaviour. I do not observe myself to behave in a particular way and infer from it that I do so by the exercise of my will. I am conscious of myself as an entity which uses my will to direct the behaviour of my body.

    I am, indeed "the ghost in the machine". Many of the things which I do have nothing to do with the needs of the body. E.g. I encounter an unfamiliar word
    whilst reading., I rise, walk across the room, take down the dictionary from the bookcase, and look up the word. Did my body need the meaning of that word ? No, not even the brain which needs only oxygen and ATP .

    In using my body as the instrument of my will to satisfy my curiosity, I become aware of my self as a being with will. There is no fundamental difference between this consciousness and my consciousness of the appearence of the dictionary on the shelf.



    "Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose." - Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr

  10. #10
    Veteran Member Apricity Funding Member
    "Friend of Apricity"

    Drawing-slim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    ....
    Meta-Ethnicity
    ...
    Ethnicity
    ....
    Ancestry
    ....
    Country
    United States
    Y-DNA
    I2a1b
    Taxonomy
    ...
    Politics
    ...
    Religion
    .....
    Gender
    Posts
    9,829
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 7,420
    Given: 12,533

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Good thread indeed.

    Has anyone of you have read Sartre's "being and nothingness"?

    I left it in half long time ago and never got back to it. I would be interesting reading your interpretation in some simplified detail so we can all understand it better and won't have to go through all that hard work

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-12-2012, 06:41 PM
  2. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-20-2011, 07:07 AM
  3. Stream of Consciousness: Dedication to the Raven Lord
    By Baron Samedi in forum Heathenry
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-08-2011, 07:10 PM
  4. Online Papers on Consciousness
    By Ulf in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-15-2009, 05:51 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •