0
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.
Bookmarks