Consciousness and Self-Consciousness

[GeistFaust]

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.

[arcticwolf]

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

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. :p 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. :p 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 ;)

[Boudica]

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

[Zephyr]

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

[GeistFaust]

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.

[GeistFaust]

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.

[Svipdag]

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

[Zephyr]

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.

[Svipdag]

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

[Drawing-slim]

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:)

[GeistFaust]

Spivdag:


This is true to an extent. I think though the only means we have to accessing time whatsoever is through empirical measures. This is because time announces or appears within the form of the empirical, making it capable of being understood as something which suspends itself within the empirical.

The duration of the present is an illusion of that mediation of the future with itself that is the past. Time is linear or is that which is applicable to the linear it is not a simply vertical horizon upon which things lay in a stagnant array of directions and lines. Its a dynamical force which is self-determined, and thus contains the potential of the consciousness time.


That is the grounds for all that we consider consciousness whether it be consciousness or not. Consciousness itself is self-consciousness to an extent because consciousness seemingly is in a state of constant mediation which it can never free itself from. This mediation is caused by the succession of events in time which present themselves to us strictly through that which is empirical.


This causes a rift between consciousness and self-consciousness which I believe can not be resolved but which remains asunder. Time is the horizon of consciousness and upon it consciousness attempts to delineate the logical facts which are simply the material or extension of consciousness. That is consciousness as self-consciousness or as determined through the senses.


The perception of things is garnered through the senses from when we have direct access to those things that are contained within time, that is to say present themselves simply through that which is phenomenal.


The phenomenal is that which conceals consciousness in its "multiple" forms. These forms though are not mere voids but are concrete modes of actuality which replicate the nature of the content of being, that is self-consciousness.


The problem with determining what this presence is and how it determines the rest of reality throws you into an intellectual loop. This is to say you can give yourself the illusion of climbing out of a fundamental problem when you are simply thrusting yourself ineffably into a new intellectual problem. Time itself dialectical and is determined in that which is dialectical and by a dialectical modularity.


Everything in a sense is self-replicating within time in so far as it extends itself in the empirical and through its form. This self-replicating is not a similarity or non-similarity but is merely an asymmetrical determination of beings. I think the only means we have of grasping these issues is utilizing our consciousness and intellect to exercise and apply the logical forms of our intuition to the "representations" of our mind.


This is all to help us to come to a better understanding of the objects of our reality which in their own right are forms of consciousness. We are in a sense an object of intuition and we are not necessarily consciousness of this without the self-reference of that which we perceive with our senses of the world around us.


This is to say that the empirical world, that is the world of self-consciousness is simply that which leaves an impression on consciousness and that which through which consciousness leaves an impression of itself. This is to say consciousness is the determination made between the objects of intuition which present themselves through strictly empirical means.


This is to say the objects of the intuition as transcendental items of our consciousness cast an appearance on them in respect to the sensibility of the subject. The nature of that object of the intuition in large part is going to be shaped by the sensibility of the subject, which in part is shaped by consciousness, that is self-consciousness.


Now when I say something in such a way I am reinstating the illusion which self-consciousness produces within itself, that is in the empirical world. This illusion makes it appear that self-consciousness, which is the conditioned extension as they are positioned together with each other, is actually that which we determined independently in consciousness.

Likewise consciousness takes on the form of self-consciousness, which in part is true, but this part is broken or sundered from self-consciousness. This is to say the interplay between consciousness and self-conscious are in a sense determined as necessary for each simply through the "vertical" array of the empirical world. That is the world as perceived by our senses through the slit of space-time as "definite" concepts with a discrete meaning.


This interplay is determined in simply in the extension of things in a conditioned form, which allows through its self-affirmation the potential of the consciousness determinations of things as they are positioned within the schemata of space-time. This is to say consciousness is here to posit objectivity for the subjective "formalities" of the sensibilities and the objects of intuitions which are positioned besides that which is consciousness in the form of consciousness.


This is not necessarily an easy thing to distinguish, because I don't believe its clear cut when it comes to determining matters such as these. The distinction can be said to be defined and "distinguished" by certain transcendental principles and rules which we abstract in the context of logic.


This distinction which is "distinguished" is something which lies within the empirical world is abstracted by our consciousness and applied to the in accordance with the law of causality and logic to the objects of intuition. This is to say to determine the "difference" between the past-future and potentiality and actuality of things as they stand together within the fabric of space-time.


Consciousness occurs or announces itself as a reality which is necessary simply in that which is phenomenal, that is in the forms of self-consciousness, which are determined through the dynamic flow between consciousness and self-consciousness. I don't know if there is any marker where we can be exactly certain that a thing whether it exists here or there or now or then can be qualitatively differentiated.


It might always be qualititatively differentiated within the context of the empirical as something which is quantitative. That means that in a sense consciousness is neither the qualitative or quantitative but merely a fluxing or mediating between the two. The best we can do to exact the law of causality to certain events and the flow of time as it takes its place in the phenomenal world is through deduction and predictions.


In large part fundamentally these deductions and predictions are based off deductions or logical inferences which our minds acknowledge in correlation with certain precepts and rules within time, that is within that which is strictly empirical. This means that there is an illusion which exists which is cast off by the self-determinations of time and the appearance of the objects of intuition.


This illusion causes us to wrongly deduct and induct certain things in large part because their is a confusion or "gap" between the prediction and then the anticipation of something. The anticipation always precedes the prediction of something because it contains the potential of prediction whatsoever.


This is to say the modes of perception within time, that is simply in space, predetermined to a certain extent already. We are just trying to discover and frame these schematic formulations that are contained within time to give them applicability and practicality.


In a sense regardless of how accurate or finely determined our predictions are in regards to reality around us, that is the objects of intuition as they stand in correlation with us as an object of intuition, we will fall into certain errors and glitches which will keep us locked within the empirical world.


This is to say the transcendental locks us, the objects of intuition, within the empirical world, and thus is lost to the empirical in for the impressions and anticipations of the mind to fall under the command of prediction and deduction.

The formulations of predictions and deductions need a system or model to represent a logical fact which they wish to posit into a transcendental union, which can be understood as consciousness. This is to say consciousness is a given necessity which determines the necessities of self-consciousness and brings them to consciousness, that is to self-consciousness.


This is an astute observation which is partially true, that is completely true as understood within the context of the succession of time. This is the nature of consciousness which is to raise itself to consciousness and so to determine its determinations as being exact and complete. That is exact and complete within the context of time, that is in the phenomenal world.


We ourselves are part of the phenomenal world which engulfs consciousness and the forms of consciousness in its neutrality, that is consciousness. It may not occur to us but those things which we suppose or appear to abide by the laws of causality, that is certain events which possess a certain logical succession and co-existence with other material forms are Independent.


That is to say a thing is not always causally linked to another by association or affirmation but simply is in a way its own effect. This is not reduces causes simply to a effect which Hume did in his skepticism but to say sometimes self-conscious articles of the intellect follow upon certain other events and are not directly correlative of them.


This is to say that these things possess a certain degree of self-consciousness. In a sense it is humans and animals to a lesser extent which can effect themselves independently of causal laws. But still that said even when self-consciousness becomes an effect of itself, that is a determination of consciousness through movements and actions, self-consciousness still retains its reciprocating effect.


This is to say even when we feel we can escape gravity we merely fall ineffably into through self--consciousness, that is because we are conditioned as empirical and phenomenal beings. That is determined qualitatively as suspended within time, that is within the fabric of space-time in its varying layers and states of being.


Time itself is layered and coincides with that which coincides with it as a layer that replicates or reflects the "multiple forms" of time. In a sense consciousness is responsible for shaping time itself and the schematic nature of its layers as it presents itself in the material world coinciding with a variety of states of being and layers of consciousness.


These varieties are constantly caught up in an interflow between the transcendental and empirical which are determined through dynamical forces of consciousness, that is the "multiple forms" of self-consciousness. This inter flow as a reciprocal determination between self-consciousness and consciousness through that which is conditioned as empirical and phenomenal, that is as things of self-consciousness.


In a sense our task is to re-frame and re-configure our arrangement and understanding of the patterns of "space-time", which are constantly announcing and revealing themselves in different ways through the differentiation of self-consciousness.


Its not always going to be easy nor is it necessary to fix an act understanding as how things work because then we are grasping merely at thin air, that is the slit through which we perceive the empirical world and by which consciousness is a potentiality. A potentiality which is constantly trying to actualize itself in correlation with the actual forms of the empirical world as perceived by our senses.



In a sense to determine anything in an actual sense through actions we must continually determine it proportionally to that which is consciousness, that is self-consciousness. We can never exact an understanding to the fullest although partially, that is completely, of the nature of cause and effect as it respects the laws of causality, that is consciousness.


We can only do our best to use our intellect, which does not follow upon causal laws but coincides with it, to understand the "transition" and arrangement of causes and effects as it concerns the laws of causality. This is how we are able to build an anticipation of certain events or occurrences as it correlates to the event which is the I of consciousness, that is the self-consciousness which is myself.


Nature itself is mathematical and geometrical that is even when accord ourselves to its certainty through synthesis and deduction we can never be certain of it. That is because self-consciousness is an even changing mutation of consciousness, which announces itself and dissolves itself through the forms of consciousness.

That is the quick and rapid arising and decaying of things takes place on the horizon of the empirical as a determination for that which is self-consciousness, that is as an extension of the law of causality.


This is very true and I stated something similar to this in the above. Time is an artifact which in its initial position finds itself in the conscious or the empirical schematics of time, that is in the phenomena or schemata of being. This form is that which is all things are distinguished through the dynamical differentiation of self-consciousness.


This distinction and differentiation takes its position up within the world of empirical measures, that is in the forms of consciousness or being, but is "distinguished" from that which is empirical. This is to say things which exist as logical and mathematical determinations upon which things take on their nature, whether in accordance or separate from the laws of causality, exist independently of the determination of our consciousness.


At the same time they exist within the extension of consciousness, that is presented through that which is phenomena, but still instantaneously separate from it. Consciousness is an extension of self-consciousness which extends itself through consciousness, so that consciousness can determine and unify multiple concepts to validate the independence of consciousness.


It is only through consciousness that which is fundamental to it, that is self-consciousness as time, that the fundamental can come to a proper understanding of itself as something which is. This is all to show that the only way to validate those things which appear to us from the depths of time is through the synthesis and deductions of consciousness.


That is to determine consciousness in correlation with the phenomenal world in accordance with the law of causality so as to determine self-consciousness as it appears to the senses. That is in so far as the senses determine the objects of our intuition which give us our perception of time-space through which intellectual perceptions become possible whatsoever.


This is the duty and obligation of the intellectual function which is a special and logical aid of self-consciousness which borrows logic and utilizes it so as to determine and validate logical and causal laws. That is to bring these self-conscious articles which appear in the empirical and phenomenal world to consciousness. This is something which I believe has "gaps" and inconsistencies involved in the process of understanding therefore I stand with Godel in conclusion.

[GeistFaust]

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:)


I have never read it but I have read Time and Being written by Heidegger which is seem as an inspiration of Being and Nothingness. To put it simply its all can be understood within the context of a good beer or an exciting moment. I just put it in a complex format to show the simplicity of it. We tend to take these distinctions which are point in case in the context of the world we enjoy in the world around us for granted. I was saying that our consciousness causes us to take it all for granted and is our consciousness which can be utilized to understand the necessity of its utilization for those things we take for granted, that is self-consciousness.

[Svipdag]

I see no fundamental distinction between self-consciousness and consciousness, nor is there a need for anything to mediate between them. any more than there is a need for something to mediate between, e.g. motor vehicle law and the corpus juris. One is specific; the other is general .

Though analogous, this is fundamentally different from the distinction between das Ding an sich and our individual private world-models. The latter are not merely special cases of the former, but different from it in nature. Our world models are not subsumed under das Ding an sich .

Though otensibly models of the same external reality, it is quite possible that no two human world models are identical. The sensation which I call "red" has the same cause as the sensation which you call "red", i.e. light having a wavelength between 650 and 750 nm. But, what you experience and what I experience in response to that stimulus, need not be at all the same.

We describe what we know about the external reality, the world outside our skins, or the world of das Ding an sich, quantitatively, because we know that the qualities which we ascribe to it are of our own invention and aspects only of our world model, which is purely qualitative.

In the external world, there is no colour or brightness. Light has wavelength or quantum energy and intensity. Sound, rhythmically varying air density variations, in the external world has neither pitch nor loudness. These qualities are subjective, they exist in our minds, are created there.

In the outside world, the physical phenomenon of sound, the cause of our sensation, has frequency and intensity. For us to hear them as tones having a distinct pitch, the vibrations must have a frequency between 16 and 20,000 hertz. Loudness of sound and brightness of light are not directly proportional to the intensity of the stimulus, but rather to the logarithm of the intensity
(Weber's Law).

We may say, then, that the world of our consciousness is qualitative, while that of the external reality from which we create it is quantitative. If our world model be considered part of our consciousness, then our awareness of that world model is also self-consciousness, and one may question whether there is any consciousness which is NOT self-consciousness.



"Nec spe nec metu" - Anon Y. Mous, 16th century

[Svipdag]

Like time, causality is another "can of worms" which speculation on consciousness opens. When I realised that my earlier view of time allowed no time in which for events to occur or for any action to be done, I suggested to a chemist friend of mine that perhaps time is an illusion and does not really exist . He replied "But, time MUST exist. Otherwise there can be no causality."

Many quantum physicists would willingly accept the non-existence of causality and, in fact, insist on it at the quantum level. Though no physicist, I am an Einsteinian determinist. I reject the idea that any occurrence is ever causeless. Yet, causality without time is inconceivable.

It is commonly thought that the future is limitlessly mutable and depends on, inter alia, our actions in the present. If the present have no duration [which logically it ought not to] events which we observe to happen without our involvement must either be created de novo at the dimensionless interface between future and past, or must already exist completely in the future, in effect, "waiting to happen".

If this reasoning be applied to all phenomena which have not "happened" yet,
it is hard to avoid inferring that the entire future is predestined and is not at all conditional upon the non-existent present. Certainly we believe that our actions will have consequences in the future, having observed that such actions in the past have been followed by such consequences.

Surely it can't all be "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc." Or can it ? If the future were rigidly pre-determined so that all events that will ever happen already exist in the future, though we are unaware of them, there would be no causality. Events would succeed one another in a certain order because they do, not because the earlier is the cause of the later event. Is not this changeless order, devoid of cause-and-effect exactly what we mean by eternity ?

Of course, this view of time and eternity is dismal. It reduces us to volitionless chessmen, left to speculate on who is playing the game..........
and who is winning.

But, if causality IS real and the future IS mutable, and our actions DO have consequences for which we ARE morally [and often legally] responsible, then what of quantum indeterminism. Are some phenomena to be exempt from causality ?

When I first studied the philosophy of science, about 60 years ago, THE fundamental axiom of science was considered to be the Axiom of Comprehensibility. The universe makes sense. It can be understood, because it is orderly, it is not subject to the whim and caprice of the gods. Events have determinable causes.

Then, along came the quantum physicists and defied the Axiom of Comprehensibility . First, there was Schrödinger's uncertainty principle.
It is impossible to determine both the velocity and the position of a moving particle, e.g. an electron, at the same time, no matter how we refine our techniques. This does not make any sense and is incomprehensible, but, they tell us, that's the way it is.

Similarly, although we can determine empirically that half of the nuclei of a radioisotope will decay in a known length of time [the "half-life"] it is intrinsically impossible to predict when any individual nucleus will decay.

When an electron absorbs a photon of radiation and is excited to a higher energy level, it is impossible to predict when it will emit a photon and drop to its original energy level and whether this will occur in one or several steps.
WHY ? The quantum physicists tell us that there's no reason for it, that's just the way it is.

If the concept of causality has any validity at all, should it not be universal ?



"FORSAN ET HÆC OLIM MEMINISSE IVVABIT" - PVBLIVS VERGILIVS MARO

[GeistFaust]

The fundamental difference lies in consciousness and makes itself evident through consciousness. In making itself evident it discloses itself from being know at all unless it be through analogy and mathematical precision.

There is definitely no need to mediate the fundamental distinction drawn between consciousness and self-consciousness which might escape our consciousness.

That is it can only be found in our self-consciousness and resides there allowing for the possibility of our experience whatsoever. This fundamental ground for all our conscious experience is dynamic and disjunctive and remains sundered from our consciousness to find.

Though analogous, this is fundamentally different from the distinction between das Ding an sich and our individual private world-models. The latter are not merely special cases of the former, but different from it in nature. Our world models are not subsumed under das Ding an sich .

Our private models might not be directly subsumed under the Ding and Sich or subsuming it but in a sense arises in coincidence with it. Because of this there is an "illusion" cast on us by our minds which makes it appear that all the private and public descriptions in the empirical world around us are presupposed by some objectivity. Some sort of objectivity which is determined by the subjective organ of the sensibility.


This is completely absurd and ridiculous. The mathematical facts and truths of the world are the property of the Das Ding an Sich to a sense because it coincides with the mathematical arrangement or schemework of the universe. It is through synthetical application that we discover or uncover these mathematical principles and rules.


Even when we do uncover them they still lie before us covered over incapable of ever being understood except through analogy and poetical prose. This is the irony of the world in its totality is that that "concept" of "understanding" that is in a self-conscious sense can only be understood through the applications of the conceptions of the understanding.


This leads to an understanding which our consciousness was not meant to understand that is it was disclosed within our self-consciousness. This does not deny the possibility to utilize self-consciousness and the "categories" of consciousness in order to accord ourselves with certain logical and mathematic truths that lie before us in the empirical world. The "fluxation" between the world of consciousness and self-consciousness which is dynamical is too fluid for us to grasp but this does not mean we can not catch a glimpse of it.


This is true very rarely if ever are two human world models are identical except if their be a defect or some odd arrangement of this model. This sensation affects our minds differently in accordance with our memory regarding those things of experience. The cause of the red will have "different" affects in accordance with the different ranges of consciousness and states of consciousness which are all presdisposed by cultural, intellectual, biological, environmental, angle of sense perception, and the attention of our sense perception.

I don't think an observation of a thing is going to be necessarily uniform to the sensation it causes, that is through the impression it makes on us the subject. The sensation arises through the subject and the affect or cause is "differentiated" through the subject and by the subject. Its not that the color "red" is irrelevant at all in truth but that it is irrelevant to the human mind without the human mind to experience it whether it be through theoretical or practical means.


The concept of "red" and its meaning as something perceived by our senses has a practical meaning which presents itself through the theoretical. It is also determined through that which it makes it possible fundamentally. In a sense this is where the illusion arises, causes by our intuition, which makes us feel as if one thing necessitates the other through causal means.


This is not true but instead a great deal of things which we call cause are mere coincidences of our subject with a certain object in the world around us. The "difference" ultimately lies in the subject and it can be easily misinterpreted and misplaced by the subject in his respects to how his environment affects him in relation to others.

The world around appears to us in accordance with the subjective will of the sensibility and intuition which can only be given objectivity through the intellect. The intellect illuminates on that which either coincides independently of any causal law with our perception or accords itself with the causal law. Its the intellects task to differentiate the difference between the two and this is not always an easy task because the the primal force of the will which is purely subjective seems to "dominate."


We describe what we know about the external reality, the world outside our skins, or the world of das Ding an sich, quantitatively, because we know that the qualities which we ascribe to it are of our own invention and aspects only of our world model, which is purely qualitative.

This is true but then again our senses causes another illusion to arise respecting this. This is the one sided nature of things and it constitutes itself in the subject. That is through the subjective nature of the sensibility which allows for the possibility of consciousness whatsoever. Again this could be deemed an illusion, but then where do we draw the line between illusion and reality.


The truth that is our objective reality seems to be a combination of both through a disjunctive union which presents itself through that which is strictly empirical. We seem to run into a contradiction when we say all that is subjective and objective lies in that which is simply in the empirical. It seems that the "differentiation" and the differentiation between that which is illusion and reality should be determined by the intellectual faculty in accordance with certain rules of induction and inference.


We can not be certain of the certain because as I said it discloses itself in the form of self-consciousness, which is something which is simply a matter of the phenomenal world. This leads to a massive contradiction which gives rise to an illusion. This illusion is the result of the universe as a whole being a disjunctive union between linear and material forms and shapes.


It is no wonder why the Ding an Sich can not be found because it is caught up in the phenomenal world. Its too dynamical and fluid to be grasped at through means of empirical and observation. That which is empirical and observable through the senses, that is all matters not concerning me, should be issues which should be solved and dealt with empirical tools and instruments in accordance with certain logical rules.


These logical rules are simply subjective until they are extrapolated by our intellect. That is our intellect through its arrangements and predictive powers allows it to enforce a certain level of objectivity to those things which are presented intuitively to our sensibility.

That is phenomenal beings which appear simply to the consciousness and can only be understood as they are through the consciousness, that is through the mediation of the senses.In the outside world, the physical phenomenon of sound, the cause of our sensation, has frequency and intensity.



This is intriquing I have never heard of this before. This seems to validate that the things which are comprehended by the mind in respect to substance allow for the possibility of all intellectual comprehension. This law explains that the affect things have on us are mediated at a higher level of consciousness, that is self-consciousness, which determines itself through the form of body.


It also determines itself through the movements of the body whether they be conscious or unconscious to an extent. This means most logical rules which we can know with certainty through our sensibility "mean" nothing to us until actualize the comprehension of this inherent law through the intellect.


This means the actual rules and principles of things concerning nature lie hidden in our minds and sense organs which are affected by the stimulus of the external world. The paradox is that this actuality is merely a potentiality, self-consciously, until we apply the logic behind it to the world around as "experienced" by us the "subject" through the intellectual faculty.


The intellectual faculty allows us to tie the connections and posit the "force" and reaction things in the external world have around us in so far as they affect us through our senses.


Even when the intellectual faculty has discovered this underlying force which is a potential actuality it still can never be certain of its findings. It can only hope to find consistency in its observations in accordance with rules of induction and inference as they are applied to the empirical world.




I think I can agree with this in the sense that our consciousness has the qualitative posited within it and through it. That is without the subjet, that is consciousness, the concept and meaning of the qualitative lacks meaning. That is it lacks meaning for whatsoever without me. I can not give meaning to something that has no meaning without me.


The qualitative though even though it resides in us as a discrete and hidden "degree" of being is nonetheless found in the things around us. The qualitative lies in everything that is capable of being understood either through the intellectual faculty or the sense organ. It lies simply in that which is empirical or quantiative to a certain degree.


To an extent what is self-consciousness without consciousness and what is consciousness without self-consciousness. By self-consciousness I mean the coincidence of things as they stand together in a disjunctive union with each other. A disjunctive union which strictly presents itself in the empirical and phenomenal world and constitutes the "meaning" and "concept" of its being through it.


I don't think you can say there is a single thing which is consciousness which is not self-consciousness as I just illustrated. The illusion we might be led to try to determine which we can not is that we can grasp self-consciousness when it lies hidden to us in some inescapable void. A void which we can not escape from in respect to the matrix of the phenomenal world which "differentiates" consciousness and self-consciousness.


This realm of the phenomenal is also that through which proper differentiations are made through the application of rules of inference and induction to the phenomenal world through the observation of it. That is the observation of it as it "affects" the "multiple" forms through which the subject determines himself self-consciously within the world. That is through the utility of the intellect and application of it to the phenomenal world which engulfs the subject.

[GeistFaust]

Causality leads to us an internal contradiction which can not seem to be resolved at all within the empirical realm. Time is the succession of a set of events as applied to the empirical and through the form of space-time. That is space-time is a concept through which the singular form of causality announces itself as an "effect."


This "effect" is something which we are all part of in a self-conscious manner and in coindence with our consciousness. Time itself is necessiated on the basis there is some form of causality, that is a succession of movements through that which has extension or is tangible. That is to say that is because time necessitates the conceptualizations of our minds as a given. Time itself remains an ismorphic event which applies itself to entropic models but is not exactly detectable by these models in the technical sense.


That is time has "moved" on before we can adequately test it within our empirical models and pinpoint accurately how it applied itself to the empirical. It could be on great illusion which carried only a particle of actuality with it. Causality outside of the realm of the phenomenal is rather spooky movement at a distance.


Its something we are not aware of in any strict sense because "space" separates us from being able to perceive the motion of things outside of the earth in the starry skies above us. These things out in empty space are moving in a retrograde manner. We have little concept of what retrograde movement means outside of the concept of linear movement.


That is a linear movement which we observe in our observation of the causal set of events that take place in the phenomenal world around us. The world in its totality appears flat to our senses and if we relied our senses to too great of extent we would be lead to many an error concerning causality and the nature of things both on this earth and in the starry skies above us.


The world in its fundamental nature is bent out of shape concerning the issue of causality and how it applies the observable world around as well as how we apply empirical tools to it. This fundamental nature of being bent out of shape causes us to have to made deductions about the causal order of events and actions in the world around us through inductive measures.


This itself is a method which does not always guarantee us a certainty of exacting a precise of how one thing effects the other or on what basis it does. That is to say what is the uniform grounds through which all things can possibly effect themselves at all. This is to say thing allows certain "effects" to take place which are independent of the uniform cause which allows for the possibility of an effect whatsoever.


The effect which proceeds from this uniform cause, that is of gravity, is both amassed through potential and actuality. Actuality determines the nature of the potentiality and the extent to which it is possible for a certain set of events or actions to occur in accordance with the uniform principle and rule which underlies it.


The potentiality determines the dynamic and fluid nature of the object in regards to its "motion" within the confines of causality. In a sense all that we see around is a constant potentiality which is "becoming" an actuality through the form of the actual. Potentiality has nothing with which to apply its measures within the confines of causality without an actual form to represent it.


That is to say without the coincidence of consciousness potentiality loses its dynamic qualities which are determined by the laws of causality, through that which is strictly empirical. As I said causation becomes less "effective" outside of the empirical and conscious. The higher the level of consciousness a being has the greater its dynamic potential on the grounds of certain conditions.


Humans can act independent of the laws of causality yet be entirely dependent on it ineffably for every independent act. Also the law of causality does not always mean that an event must follow upon in a certain order necessarily although our mind might anticipate this. Sometimes things appear to act in order with each other but only act independently of each other. This difference is made by the senses but is ultimately "differentiated" through the discerning power of the intellect.

In a sense the fact the humans have a "different" level of effecting and causing things means there is different "concepts" and "meanings" which can be derived about time as it applies to the empirical world. There are different layers and states of being within the context of time and causality which apply themselves to the empirical and historical.


These layers and states are evident to us in a subjective manner through our sensibility and intuition. Isolated from the use of this faculty and our intellect there is no "meaning" or "concept" which we can add to time in respect to how it affects itself in different beings and how these beings react to it.

In large part our awareness of the causal and time itself as a thing determining itself in coincidence with the empirical world around us is because of the advanced nature of the senses.


The senses themselves are advanced because the sensations and impressions they produce on us of the world around us in relation to ourselves is "intellectual." That is to say our intellectual faculty gives the potential an actual and objective critique which allows us to "differentiate" the causal from the effect within the context of the empirical.

I can agree with this in accordance as I said above. I would not understand the correlation between causality and certain natural phenomenons such as lightening. There are certain conditions which "condition" its being. The causes then are in place in a sense and align themselves in a certain way in accordance with laws of gravity to produce a certain effect, that is lightening.


We derive this law and its actuality through the intellet which allows us to perceive how things follow in the world around as perceived through the senses. I think some causes are conditioned in a sense through the steady and dynamic shifting within nature. These conditioned forms are predisposed more or less by micro-biological arrangements in the earth's atmosphere.


If you think about despite the fact we live an entropic chamber where things are fluxing back and forth being different states of energy emission levels, there is a consistency to it. A consistency which we continually anticipate in accordance with our experience. This consistency does not necessarily hold in all things and even those things it does it varies to which extent it applies itself to the empirical world.


Our intellects allow us as humans to differentiate the "differentiated" which is always differentiating itself differently but in a similar context. Lightening always has a similar effect in a sense within the context of the earth's lower atmosphere and the conditions for it always remain the same. The intensity and degree to which lightening effects is though always dynamical and constantly shifting in accordance with the air and weather patterns.


We have very little control over the laws of causality despite the fact we are able to identify the cause and effects of certain things, ground laws and principles regarding certain inherent laws in nature, and comprehend the interconnection between certain conditioned interactions and reactions with certain necessary effects.


In a sense causality controls us quite ineffably because we are caught up in actuality through the dynamic flow of potentiality. Potentiality is something in a sense which defines the nature of most things relating to causality. Everything is potentiality in an extent just as much as it is an actuality. The potentiality of a thing brings into question its actuality, because what is one moment changes the next in a rapid succession of events.


We can in a sense influence and even curb the potentiality of certain things to fit our designs and arrangements. That said causality has a mind of its own which we are not always able to predict through certain entropic models. We can anticipate and induct things and this seems to be the only method we have to "deduct" certain relations between the effect and cause of a thing.


I think this even causes a great deal of uncertainty even when we think we have discovered something which appears to apply to the necessary requirements of the law of causality. We can apprehend certain things to be true but never truly understand it to be true.

I think all this causes a great deal of doubt and skepticism regarding the entropic designs through which causality presents itself and determines itself through certain succession of effects.

We can seem only know so much giving the tools and equipments we have to test certain things regarding the law of causality as we observe it unravelling itself in the phenomenal world around us. There seems to be things out there which our entropic and scientific models which will only be left to our sensibility and intuition to fallaciously conclude on.


It is commonly thought that the future is limitlessly mutable and depends on, inter alia, our actions in the present. If the present have no duration [which logically it ought not to] events which we observe to happen without our involvement must either be created de novo at the dimensionless interface between future and past, or must already exist completely in the future, in effect, "waiting to happen".

This is why I don't try to think beyond the future or in terms of the duration of the present. These things remain consistently isolated to some degree or another. They seem to have already been "thought" of through the blind strivings of causality which oddly and coincidentally enough seems to have a certain "order" about its "disorder."


We are always waiting in anticipation of the future because in a sense the future is the past and the past is the "future." The present is just the disjunctive breakoff between the past and future. That past always retains itself and nothing but it could have come first in accordance with the laws and conditions of causality.


At this point of breakoff we have this illusion that the future and past are different through the perception of our senses. This difference then that which we perceive through our senses but it is not a "difference" which can be differentiated by the intellect outside of the empirical world. That is the past cuts itself off in the future and the future is constantly returning into the past in accordance with the duration of time.


This is to say time is a linear format which permeates its succession through the linear anticipation of the future. Between the "space" of the past and future lies time itself which discloses itself through the presentation of the phenomenal world. Heidegger would say that when something extended itself this was a given necessity but that it "represented" an underlying layer or state of being.


This layer or state of being we can perceive quite ineffably through our senses that we often confuse the outer with the inner because the inner applies itself simply through that which is outer. That which is outer allow us access to the inner, that is that which is consciousness.


It is through the inner that certain connections with the outer world are determined to correlate with certain inner law and rule on the ground of certain circumstances and conditions. That is the intellect and consciousness is made "aware" of itself in the inner but only has applicability in the things of the outer world as the affect our sensibility and intuition.


That is our intuition and sensibility give access to the intellect the fundamental grounds upon which it lies in accordance with. The intellect though must determine itself independently of the sensibility and intuition to ever "differentiate" the differences contained within the inner being.


That is to gauge and measure the multiple components and nature of the inner being as it is presented through the outer world. This is all a very dynamic and complex process which necessitates a conscious interaction between the intellect and senses in so far as it regards converting potentiality into actuality.


That is to bring the inner consciousness into consciousness in the actual and to transform the actual into the potentiality which lies within it. The potentiality of the actuality of a thing is never fixed but is a constant fluid state of being. It only appears to be fixed at times because of the constant suspension of the present duration of time over the form of the actual.

[GeistFaust]

The event of the future are to different extents depending on the nature of the being are going to be affected by the nature of previous effects and actions. This is regardless of whether they were natural or artificial. The cause in itself is a consequence of a dynamic mathematical pattern in nature which is constantly shifting between different "variables."


This "consequence" coincides with an effect which takes place "separate" of it. That is there are two different completely different things "separated" by the consequences by the laws of causality. The one takes place within the confines of time itself that is from the "transition" of the phenomenal world from the past to the future.


In part this separation is one of necessity the other is that of a possibility. This possibility is an actuality, which is always through the world of the intellect and conscious motions being actualized. That is possibilities and potentialities(I call them probabilities also) coincide in a qualitative state of being.


That is within the confines of that which is strictly empirical and thus by nature contains the potential for consciousness and is in actuality self-conscious. In a sense the consequences of our conscious motions and actions cause a chain set of reactions which our intellect is always trying to recollect itself within.


That is to say the intellect is trying to re-frame its actual position in accordance with previous ones regarding the conscious motions of our being. All our conscious actions are to some extent or another although not always necessiated by certain basic and fundamental functions which allow us to exist whatsoever.


This is to say that we are driven by certain passions and motives and these in a sense act like gravity upon our intellect and the conscious motions which we make towards certain things. The "effect" of the passions upon the intellect and our conscious motions always leads us to confuse one with the other due to an illusion which is cast on us by our sense faculty.


It is this sense faculty though which offers us access and a subsequent impression of the phenomenal world around us. That is it allows though quite errantly for the intellectual faculty to attempt effect or produce the passions and emotions which affect our conscious motions. In a sense to an extent our intellectual faculty can have an affect on our passions and "motives" as they are acted upon in the phenomenal world.


The affect though is limited to the nature of the probabilities which are conditioned to an extent by the anticipation of certain actions. That is the body and brain "build" certain nerve paths in order to anticipate a certain set of actions upon the "motives" of our passions.


Our intellect and conscious motions only play a partial role and only that to attain the "multiple" probabilites which our passions present us through the phenomenal world. The intellect and conscious motions though play a necessary role and without them there is no "concept" of anticipation to "build" upon respecting the phenomenal world and the "motives" we have upon acting in a certain way upon certain things in it.


This is right without the ability to consciously effect things there is no causality which can be inferred. This applies differently to lower beings which have no power to effect things consciously. The activity of even the lower things is dynamic and never static, except for some extremely low beings in nature. The higher the state of being and type of being the more dynamic and fluid its internal life is.


Plants and such are affected by external affairs in accordance with the internal nature of its organism which presents itself as being less "closed" then that of animals and humans. It is completely dependent on the causality of things as they affect themselves around it whether it be through conscious or unconscious activity. The plant will adapt its position itself to attain sunlight or water, which its inner nature seems to determine itself quite magnetically.


This does not mean that the plant itself is consciously moving but is merely acting in accordance with its internal state in reaction to certain necessities in the world around it. I think certain things are predisposed to a certain extent in accordance with causality so certain necessary effects can be made possible at all. That is certain effects as they take place within the context of time, that is isolated from the consciousness.


We can understand the interaction between effect and cause within the context of time through the intellectual faculty which arranges things so as to connect the details of certain necessary laws together. This is all so humans can self-consciously come to understand the affect cause has in certain things in nature and their "relation" to them.


The internal state of animals determines itself through the application of instinct in anticipation of certain effects and causes through habits. That is the object possesses little to none quantiative value for animals, but possesses merely a qualitative value which accords with the necessity of its survival. Therefore animals never freely will themselves because they are rarely thinking about reacting to something its merely something which they anticipate through habit.


The internal conscious of an animal is bent outwards towards acting upon the world around it and impressing itself on the phenomenal world. But it does so without the use of the intellect which makes it simply a subjective wandering lacking all objectivity. That means with animals that actual things in the world only possess a certain potentiality which they "perceive" as actual. This is to say the actual never takes on anything but merely a potentiality, that is an illusion which the animal reacts to out of mere survival.



That is the animal knows what it needs and how to get it but does not exactly comprehend the form or content of that which acquires for survival. The animal therefore is locked into a world cut off from conscious reality as understood by humans, but instead lives in a dynamic world that is stagnant of internal determination of impression of the actual world. That is an apprecation of the aesthetical for the sake of consciousness and purely for that which is consciousness.

Humans though can impress and determine their internal activity through intellectual activity, but only partially through it. That is fully through the partial but never completely because even that which appears to be fixed in the actual is constantly getting lost in the dynamic interchange of the mind's potentiality.

The mind's potentiality coincide with that of the actual and determines the actual to the extent the actual effects itself through the mediation of consciousness. That is in so far as it determines itself in "relation" to the self-consciousness and impressions its understanding of the phenomenal world onto it.

That impresses it on the internal activity of the sensibility which impresses its subconscious comprehension of the phenomenal world through the senses onto the intellect. Its a disjunctive and dynamic union which can neither be located but is lost in the phenomenal world. It presents itself as being lost in the world around us as perceived through the senses and which can only be covered in its fullness, that is its illusioned completeness, through the presence of the incomplete determinations of the intellect.



It might be dismal but in a sense I find existence in its totality to be a yawning gap. That is existence is tired of itself and because of this it constantly produces new states and layers of being. That is nature itself is asleep in the youthful and protean dynamics of the plasmic connection between things in the phenomenal world.


This plasmic connection can not be perceived but is disclosed in the fragility of the phenomenal world. That is through all the nerve endings which characterize the fundamental and basic nature of all phenomenal beings with a few exceptions. Time "wins" the game in the end because it determines a constant mathematic grid upon which the world of reality in its partiality and totality is "constructed."


That is illusion wins over the truth in the end regardless of the amount of truth and objectivity which is discovered within the illusion of time by our intellect. The illusion of reality gave rise to the necessity of the intellect and the subject to "perceive" it whatsoever.


If not then the "concepts" and "variables" of time would never able to be validated within the empirical and applied to certain empirical events. Outside of the intellectual and subject the subjective nature of this illusion continues quite persistently by transmuting itself into "different" forms of energy, that is new worlds of consciousness and phenomenal reality.

Causality is real this is know through that which is real. That is through that which we perceive to our senses in the phenomenal world around us. It just hides and disgusies itself from being completely comprehended as it takes place in relation to our sensibility and intuition. That is in so far as it is determined by our intellectual activity. The intellect is "limited" by the extent of the potentiality of the subject which is conditioned by the dynamics of "multiple" components.


The future is mutable on the basis of this law of causality and this mutability is adapts itself to the variation of potentialities which arise from the reactions and stimulus that occurs between things. You can say that things in a sense "become" something in accordance with the laws of causality by pure statistical chance. This makes it appear that a law of causality is responsible for the necessary events of things in accordance with our inferences and anticipations of them as related to us by the phenomenal world.


This means that the law of causality is perhaps nothing more then an illusion which we perceive to be true be the coincidence of certain things which arise by pure statistical probabilities. The truth and causality of a thing is caused by the coincidence of events with the consciousness which arouses the anticipation of self-consciousness.


The coincidence of certain events does not necessarily derive a truth that aligns itself with the laws of causality. Instead somethings appears to be fixed in terms of self-consciousness, that is in so far as things are determined by the connections made by thoughts and conscious motions. This is to say in so far as things have a "relevance" to the actual can we fix a necessity to a certain cause or not.


The fact or reality that there is a certain cause which belongs to actual, that is the self-consciousness of a fact "determined" through thoughts and conscious motions, is determined simply through the faculty of the intellect. Sense perceptions offers us very little but the "mediation" of the "means" through which reaching an objective conclusion is possible whatsoever.


This subjective faculty of the sense casts an illusion that it is real when its reality is that of casting illusions. Illusions which are real and are disclosed in the real only to be understood through the intellect but which are already impressed to some extent or another through anticipation on the intuition.


The potential and cause never actual come to be without the real, that is the actual I have been talking about, but are merely suspended constantly in the realm of transcendental possibilities. We are given the illusion that they are real when either through the intellect or the unconscious motives impressed on the intellect and the subconscious faculty a certain extent and type of potential is actualized in the form of that which is actual.