Section 32 (first updated 1.31.2021)
General science
The “practical” importance of associating the physical science, with the philosophical one, speaks volumes about “contextualizing” the invariable.
The usage of “Contextual” in the philosophical domain does NOT merely mean to “limit” the universal facts to “particular” instances. The specialized science(s) each provides “content” that is limited by the knowledge of some other science.
atom – “strips”
Alone, each science is NOT only incomplete but it is meant to “strip” away the full nature of the world, into as many specific facts limited by the domain these facts deals with. For example, mathematical science, in conjunction with the physical science, can tell us that one particle can interact in certain ways with ‘other’ particles under certain conditions.
But the physical measure of an “atom” strips the concept it deals with, into its bare notion of its object, without spirit. The object is reduced to a spherical dimension which can disclose an infinite number of “minute” quantities that compact together forming only the figure of the form essential to a definite quality.
Consciousness is the wave-length spectrum that connects together the rational and abstract quality of reality, with that of, the concrete and physical realm.
Quantum – “probability”
Right now the logic of quantum mechanics is predicated on the notion of “probability”- which itself is the right starting point because it deals with all opposing possibilities of logic. But it is “incomplete” when it takes its own initial state of uncertainty with that of being the initial state of the world.
On some level, a theory that invariably presupposes the observer as indivisible from the phenomenon, must assume that the fundamental operations of the phenomenon is intimately related to that of the observer. However, the next break through in making sense of this probability is to adopt the complete opposite view of logic- that is- I like to call it the “logic of consciousness” which seems to be more appropriate then to say “certainty”, when dealing with the phenomenon of probability.
In the idea of probability, there is no inherent “certainty” because a result has NOT yet been achieved in order to determine possibility into reality. In this transactional value between potentiality and reality, there is the logic of consciousness, which directly makes the delineation from possibility to reality, I.e., the k sever makes “sense” of the experience by witnessing it and participating in it as their present reality.
Logic of Organic
Human reasoning hosts what we call is “The logic of Reason”, because logic in our organicism ontologies is NOT a wholly theoretical system of quantifying the world into thoughts. But it is also an inverse organic process of generating itself, which has its place in human reasoning, and out in nature. The effort is to associate the logic of Reason to supplement the logic of probability underpinning modern quantum mechanics today.
Quantum randomness explains the process of photosynthesis- the very basis for life. Quantum is NOT so random- what we see as “random” is in fact a working of a process that reach the limits of our comprehension, literally and figuratively.
The aim of the “ontology of science” is meant to explain what is the relation of concept as a phenomena in nature. Included in this task is how the particular concept bears a relation to the essential principles in the universe, mainly- how a specific concept relates with Reason. Or in other words, how the concept portrays an element of Reason. The ontology of science is NOT interested in the detailed application of the theory, but rather also, what the theory means as an element in nature, the experience phenomenon of the observer.
“all is relative”
The theory of general and special relativity for example will be explained in most basic ways so as to only demonstrate the element of Reason in them that the theory proves. Proof in this sense is NOT deducing a set of logical axioms to reach expected conclusions, but also the realization, or discovery, of the idea, is the essence of ontology that guides physical sciences. And so any further extensive application of this theory beyond this fact will just be another indication, a further proof, of what the theory is originally guided by. The “subject” is both the subject-matter, which is the object, and the “thinking” about it, the subject observer.
The popular culture slogan associated with Einsteins general relativity is the utterance that “all is relative”. This notion is far from what the theory indicates. And so the question must be asked; if “all” is relative, it is relative to whom?
In general relativity, the observer is taken to be the “point” in determining the relativity of moving objects. In general relativity: what is relative is A) how two or more objects are relative to the observer and B) how each relative relation is relative to every other object NOT relative to the observer, that is, absolute motion.
As the “inertial” observers’ move relative to each other, which of the statements they make are relative, and which are absolute? the question of relativity is which object moves relative to each group of observers obviously different viewpoints of the same phenomenon, and how such relative motion moves relative to “absolute” motion- or all objects moving generally, or all things in motion?
Quantum theory demonstrates a more startling revelation about the nature of the observer in relation to the phenomenon. What quantum theory demonstrates is that the observer is in fact an absolute fact of the phenomenon. And so where the theory of relatively took the observer to be that particular mediating two objects in motion- quantum took the observer to be determining the object in motion. The latter bears the object as the bringing to being of the object and in this sense the observer in this sense is no longer a relative variable to the object, but rather an absolute invariability of the object. In the ontology of science proposes the “pragmatic maxim” in an inverse and thus in a peculiar way. Whereas the traditional pragmatic maxim is understood as:…
The pragmatic maxim in its ontological form takes the specific facts about the phenomenon to bear its relation to the universal. And so where the traditional pragmatic maxim asks; how the universal relates to the particular? The ontological maxim asks; how the particular relates to the universal? Both maxims are distinct yet relate each other. (Reference pierce).
The idea of relativity expresses that the differences
Mind=reality principle.
Substance is an idea that takes itself as object and because the object is an idea of itself, it is real for itself. Time as a physical dimension demonstrates this. In quantum, the past present and future are occurring at once. You will be dying, being born, and doing everything at once. This is just a complex reiteration of the universal principle of space, explain above Russell that space is universal. When time is defined by space, events are not mere moments passing by but are rather properties of an active entity.
What it means for everything to be occurring simultaneously just means that different events are concurring in the same principle.
The notion of reason is the idea. The nature of the idea is that it elaborates, critiques and develops on itself. This means that an idea never looses the connection with itself. Even if it abandons what it conceives as its limitations, it holds the limitations in memory as stages in the processes of its development.
This is often contrasted with the apparent nature of matter. Objects are said to hold a wholly independent subsistence from each other, and their relation is rather the annihilation of each other. And in the discourse of development objects are disused and dispensed.
The idea elaborates itself by distinguishing itself and this is marked by the relativity of objects that they each constitute the specific form of the development of the idea. The critique of itself takes the shape of sublation which appears as annihilation and destruction that objects engage onto each other. This destruction is however only external and is rather a deconstruction and not an absolute annihilation. Any disuse of the object is but just the maintenance of the development beyond it. The configuration for its new and refined form that has picked up on the deficiencies of the prior shape.
(Title the extinction in progress evolution – idiosyncrasy of extinction)
How consciousness maintains the object. Life and environment are the same continuity of thought. Thought and action are same spectrum.
(Add event particle micro-macro)
euythporo observer problem
What is the connection between the notion of the ultimate observer and the relation between the thought and object? The ancient concept of “thought” characterizes the modern idea of consciousness as ultimate observer. There are problems with the identification of consciousness as the observer. The observer reduces the notion of consciousness to some particular form of thought that conceives the object related to its search. The term observer suggests the kind of consciousness limited to the object of its search. The term observer means that there is an active search to wittiness or watch something, which alone does not tell us the magnitude of that conception, in what sense is the search to observe involved in the necessity of the object related to its conception?
This is commonly asked as; Do I conceive the object because it is there, or is the object there for my conception? What is the continuity between the conception of the object being there and the object being therefor emu conception? The idea of the observer does not answer this dichotomy the conception and its object. In the context of the observer, it seems that the conception of the object is not necessarily related to the object existing for the conception. In the latter case whether the object is observed or not does not account for its generation into being for any reason. The observer is an abstraction of consciousness generally alone it does not answer whether the generation of an object is related to its conception? What is the nature of the object as it relates to the rational conception of it? The object relates to the conception insofar as it constitutes for it the material. The mate-rial is simply the relational unity that constitutes the object as the conceived thought by consciousness.
Does the existence of object make it conceived or because the object is conceived it exists (same problem as euythporo). In either case the object in itself stand as arbitrary because what in the existence of the object make it conceived? The true matter of fact is that the object is the conception.
To explore this further let us take the activity of thought as it naturally occurs in the mind and the conscious awareness of it. It is here important to distinguish between consciousness and to be conscious because the latter is a specific act in response to thought and the former is the very activity of thought. This distinction however is the very problem. We naturally hold that there is a continuous process of thought happening in our mind and we in conjunction being made aware of it. Ideas spring forth from the mind and instigates a conscious response. The thought we normally identify as being our own is the response to the thought which naturally grasps our attention. And from this we make the distinction that thinking is divided between this mysterious process of thinking that is constantly happening and our conscious awareness of it. The self involves this dialectic between a general constant thinking and particular responses to it.
When we think of an idea we respond to it with another idea and we often take the response as the identity of the thinking of the self, my thoughts. This distinction however does not constitute two different forms of thinking. But rather thought involves the dialectical relation where the proposition (thesis) arrives naturally and is answered (negated) consciously both of which result in the very same thought as the new idea to the same process again. The thought that springs forth from the mind and the awareness of it both constitute the same thinking. It is in the nature of the becoming of the idea that it produces in its negative the lack of awareness of its being so that the conclusion is legitimate in securing for it the true recognition. To prove that the idea and its negation are not merely relative and separate forms of thought but are the very unity of thought, as this process is happening the individual can adopt the third kind of awareness, which being essentially empty in itself, only becomes some specific function of consciousness, when it acts as the awareness of the relation. The third form of thought is aware at the same time of the idea that naturally springs forth, the conscious response to that, and of itself conceiving this relation. If the organic idea and its negation do not belong to the same thought, then a reciprocal awareness of them is impossible. (Alan watts your bodily functions continue to be and are connected with everything)
To perceive A means its very identification makes it separate from B of which otherwise cannot be known as distinct from A. What is doing the conception must remain the same so as to not be limited to one of the differences in the identification . Consciousness cannot be the different object conceiving the other because that renders the conception of the two differences the same. The form of consciousness must be that opposite to an object, because whenever the object is in one position the consciousness must be in both. (Put here arrangement position atomism)
Rationalization
The notion of the “observer” conceits that an object is defined by its capacity to occupy a form in its conception. In other words, a conception is a rationalization of a form. The term “rationalization” in the social sciences and especially with its usage by Weber has developed the negative connotation to mean justification. Rationalization used to define modernity following its assessment of the industrialization combined efficiency with value in manner wherein the universal truth is now at the wimp of individual efficiency.
To explain something now always involves the presupposition of how that explanation is personally beneficial and because what is associated with the subjectivity are the instincts, reasoning become a means to satisfying the basic instinct, the inverse of the old supposition that the instincts are subordinate to their master reason, and that reason ought to govern the instinct. Explaining something therefore lost it’s true value of knowing it for its own sake.
In mathematics the notion of demonstration maintains the pragmatic tone in the idea of explaining something with the definition of rationalization as the capacity to convert a function into a form. In this meaning reasoning supplements it’s own end by its process.
(Add to the self exciting circuit)
Originating point of the conception
The further the conception is in space from the observer the less, or the greater the vast difference between the origin point of the observer to the end point of the conception, the faster
The difficulty in science to determine how many distinct parts originate from the same single whole is primarily due to the fact that there is no order external from the observer as an origin point of the conception. The validity of a demonstration is from the order of organizing a thought process in an order following a foundation. The foundation however is where the difficulty arises because the foundation on the one hand is an origin point from which things are built upon but on the other hand as an origin point is arbitrarily determined as the center from an indetermination. There is however an obvious order in nature and one which science ought to accurately explain, the only problem is the the natural order involves multidimensional levels is involved in changing the order.
if our scientific conception of things works from the outside in, or rather takes the external point of view as the beginning and advancing towards the internal as the end, then it becomes very difficult to demonstrate how distinct variables originate back to the same point. For example if we take the distinct branches of a tree as the first proposition, then it will be difficult to ascertain how they each follow as results from the same trunk without already having the idea of the trunk as the unity where the branches come together to reside in. If we reverse the structure of thought such that the conception of things is understood as an inside out process, or from the same internal underlying substance there exists an externalized distinction of things, then it will be easy for example to see how the same trunk gave rise to distinct branches. Unfortunately the same trunk itself also arises from beneath it multiplicity of roots akin in variability to the branches on the outside. So that the same problem remains unclear as the same trunk arises from the divinity of branches or roots. The synthesis of this contradiction proposes that the trunk is the unity, the point where the distinctions from every side come together to constitute the same whole whereby they are parts of. We see this in the same phenomenon when perceiving a whole with parts, when looking at something as a whole we see that the borderlines that compile the parts together as a whole is really a result from the parts being together in relation to each other. (Explain something solid) the outline of a tree that allows it to be a whole object distinct from a car for example is the togetherness of its leafs, branches trunk in approximately .
The limitation in the sensible faculties (when you see you do not smell) some elements are not seen but that does not mean they lack an inherent capacity to be seen, the question becomes when something is seen in an altered manner does that constitute the same element? For example air is not seen but still consists of a species of oxygen molecules with physical measures that allows it to be felt, now if an instrument is introduced to allow air to be seen, is the air under the instrument the same as the air being felt? The answer is that air is a multidimensional element of varying factors so that the same reference of air itself involves multitudes of variables.
The conception is a demonstration of a rational form denotes not a mere ego and antithetical to the subjective idealism doctrine, the world is not ‘only in your mind ’ which is really a question asking to what degree is my experience responsible for the world? This question is quickly rebutted with the interchange wherein the mind is an objective artifact in nature and the processes of nature exhibit the same rationality as mind. The real question is whether or not the conception from any object can derive the same world? The answer is that a conception is never a single place from which things are derived from because then we have what Hegel calls a “reflection”
Contrary to the mundane presupposition of the Big Bang we know that the universe did not arose from a single location because the place from where the universe began from and towards where it is heading would constitute an absolute relation so that the origin point is predicated by the point determining its advance. An origin point is predicated by its presupposition for giving rise to a process. Any action is done as demonstration of a thought…
Think for yourself
We often recklessly throw around what came to be the motto of modern thought: “think for yourself”. It is this standard of thought that Kant famously frames “enlightenment”. It is easy for people to get caught up with this phrase without fully understanding its implications. Thinking for oneself simply suggests the need to think, the assertion to use the head, because the presumption is that most people either do not think at all, or that their thinking is mere regurgitation of common opinion. Thinking for oneself proves to be deontological maxim, and like all similar maxims, it is generally true, but it does not ascertain the nature of true thinking and it does not say who is doing the thinking. (Alan watts) as Alan watts says, who are you that is doing the thinking? It merely asserts that true thought begins with one taking charge and making use of their naturally given ability of critical reflection. To what extent the individual possess control over their thought is a concern not explained by the mere assertion to think for yourself.
Critical thinking in the primary sense is the ability of possessing control over thoughts having effects on the consciousness. Critical thinking is organic in what spawns in the understanding as judgment. Judgment is the pragmatic element of the understanding because it is moral. Judgment in the basic sense is the ability to make considered decisions and reasonable conclusions, the action appropriate to the situation. Judgment is qualitatively impending because that is the very basis from which reasonable decisions are concluded. The quality of something is the basis from which judgment is reached. The judgment only determines the quality by reaffirming it. As Aristotle says a snob nose produces that judgment of it.
The ontological question is that what is in you that is thinking? Who is doing the thinking? (Alan watts) just like your heart beats without control, or skin cells generate and perish, your thought are natural in this way. The distinction between involuntary actions and what we consider voluntary is very undefined difference. For example Breathing is said to be controlled voluntarily and it also continuous to happen involuntarily. What this means is that when we are aware of breathing we can determine it but when unaware it is still determined.
To think for oneself unfortunately took on the common insinuation to think whatsoever and not follow universal principles of logic. Naturally occurring thoughts are dialectical meaning that every occurring idea is at the same time negated. The negation of the idea is only so as to birth forth another. But if the naturally occurring thoughts are not qualified by the consciousness sometimes the negation of the idea is taken so as to exclude it, and in this way the mind begins to only favor the negation over the idea. The depiction of the devil is always a sophist, Mephistopheles in Faust, the reason is because the devil takes the secondary as the primary, insists on the obviously worst and argues that it is better. And this is not done from a place of ignorance but rather of arrogance, although the distinction is perhaps vague.
Our naturally occurring thoughts require qualification so that the mind becomes aware when it negates the idea and how that negation should be sublated to form the resolution which is the grounds for the next idea. If the mind becomes fixated on the idea as negated, then it will result in what Hegel calls negative reason, the dead end where it cannot proceed in thought if it does not resolve the fact that the negation is the idea, what thought is, is the mere negation, in other words thought is a mental point of view, a mindset, that upon acting against itself as a perspective, it becomes an idea, which in our observational discourse is the very form of the object.
The arousal of the idea comes quite naturally from the negation against it. It is remarkable that in the ultimate sense, objects are all part of the mindset negating them, for the very construction of the object remains from the realization of what-it-is-not because only from the perspective of what the object is not the object is entertained, because from what the thing is, there is no aspiration of it. In psychoanalysis, the psyche not only involves complex that must be resolved during the development of the individual, but rather the psyche itself is a complex insofar as it belongs to some particular personality. The complexes explain the unresolved evolutionary acquired characteristic. Even if we empirically look at the asethics of the brain, we see that it is a physically compressed, tangled, crunched body of mass. (Add picture of brain)
The interesting point is that the unresolved mass serves as the governing organ of the body. This is because in the brain is the potentiality of the body driving its reality. The brain is the original fetus for life as the generation of sperm is governed by it as the possibilities of the self, impregnating the womb for the first entrance into the world. (Find where you talk about this) each sperm is a potential body of the self. (Sperm wars) the sperms do not merely compete but rather work as a team effort into the wilderness of the environment of the womb to uphold their best representation of the group, which sometimes is a vulgar human being at the end of the process. The sperm that turns into an empreo not only contains the genetic information for the physical appearance of the body derived from the parents but also the kind of character and life the individual will possess to determine during their life. The kind of life the individual possess is already determined by the vision of the predecessors that he represents. Just like the one sperm is upheld by the patch to reach the womb, the individual is the one person brought about by the workings of the ancestry.
The recent notion of individuality took on the narrow understanding
In making the criteria of thought the individual, it confuses the meaning of individuality to mean the same as the single person distinct from a group. That any opinion the individual spews out is considerable merely because it “belongs” to the individual. Individuality however is a standard for thinking because it precipitates the quality of something particular that distinguishes it from others of the same kind. That the individual presuppose individuality on the fact that they are distinct entity from the group does not tell us why they are distinct or by what measure. In order for the individual to be distinct presupposes that their individuality involves some essential function in expressing the whole. The mere fact that an individual is distinct on the fact that they are distinct is superfluousness.
To think for oneself only so as to dismiss generally accepted truths on the ground that it is generally accepted is also the same vice as to never exercise ones own thinking. Either case leads to the intellectual vice of egotistic mind operating on the assumption that its particular form can change the inherent nature of universal principles of reason. However this very limitation of mind is at the same time the potential strength of its mortality. The mind in the particular instance is meant to critique universal principles so as to understand them. It begins to reprehend them when the subjective part comprehends the form of universal principles and operates in the manner opposite to it while excepting the result of the proper conduct.
are either dismissed on the confusion that they are subjective inclinations or the very fact that there is anything universally true is altogether denied.
What it means for an idea to originate from the mind is, to some degree, confused by the claim to think for oneself. It is not so straightforward that the individual is the actual source of an idea,
This denies the very question that it proposes: in what sense is the individual the cause of any idea? What it means for thought to originate must be understood universally and not only as it pertains to some particular mind. In other words, the individual is the cause of thought only insofar far as the universal in him, the very thought itself.
Alan watts idea of consciousness includes that every individual is not victim but chooses their essence as they are that part of consciousness curious of that experience, with the development of vision, the objects directly perceive others. The notion is the proper principle of logic because it is the activity of consciousness universally)
What it means for something to be abstract characterizes what we mean by universal. The abstract is universal in the sense that it pertains to, but is not limited by, particular things. The concrete is always something particular because it is the manifestation of some conception.
There are dangerous to attributing the abstract with the universal and the concrete with the particular. If the particular is concrete, does this mean that the universal is excluded from the meaning akin to the concrete? If universality lacks the term concrete how can it be that which is shared by everything, as that feature surly retains the meaning of being the most real of things. How can the reality principle be only abstract? The particular is not something different from the universal but is only distinguished on the grounds that it is some determination of the universal. The particular is the infinitely many functions of the universal. The particular is infinitely divisible, the abstract indivisible.
Thought follows naturally from the being of things. The self is in once sense particular configurations of the world, but more fundamentally it is nothing in itself but the pure capacity to perceive the thing of which it is thought in. The opinion that thought somehow exists prior to the individual is very strange for the modern thinker but we do possess an unconscious intuition of this notion. In fact, the notion that thought is beyond the individual is perhaps the very
Thought as universal is already achieved as the object because essentially it aims to enter upon every experience and it is in this sense that it is never empty of concreteness. Curiosity as an intuition of the understanding is appropriation of consciousness. The nature of events are processes of consciousness (explain whitehead events, bitrfucation) It is in the nature of consciousness as an element of the understanding to remain purely void of concreteness in contradistinction from its thoughts, which are the concrete objects, so as to study and partake its own thinking. Consciousness is the very experience of thought.
Algebra is the way letters forms words. Algebra is the mathematics of language.
The meaning of words is derived by appropriating the notion, looks at every possibility of the thought. The word “form” means shape, essential nature and also means combine, create and conceive. Form is the activity of the center, but the center being the point determined by the consciousness is not anywhere specific, is the nothing perceiving the activity of its being, and as such, is really the same as everything comprising that activity. The conception of everything is at the same time everything, but is also none of it so as to conceive all of it because if it is any particular thing of it excluding the rest, in the first instance, it would already be conceived as that, and therefore is the conception that does not escape.
Language is example of the perfect affinity that thought follows naturally from the being of things. For example, words are relations (add here explains adverb , verb adjective etc.) The word “interview” is relation of the sub words “inter” and “view”. Inter can mean interaction, or internal, view means perspective, point of view etc. Together they inform the thought the an interview is the interaction in the internal of someone…
Language is not merely descriptive but is fundamentally normative. Moreover to understand how language is descriptive we first have to understand exactly how it is normative. The term normative in some sense confuses standards with norms. Whereas norms may involve arbitrariness because the fact that something is typical or usual alone does not make it standard. Standards are never arbitrary because they always proved themselves to be of a certain level of quality, otherwise they would not be attainments of some measurements. Standards are not determined by their regularity, that a word is often used does not make it the standard for the particular thought it is meant to elucidate. Language is standard of thought and it would be inappropriate to call language norms because whether certain words are accepted on this or that basis because their reoccurring presence, tells us nothing about the thought words are meant to illustrate. Words are forms of communication because they are standards of thoughts, thought applies language so as to determine the quality of its ideas by structuring them in relation to each other in the same arrangements as the order of nature. Nature is similar to language because it is also an expression of thought and therefore standard for an actualization.
(Critique Wittgenstein) – the idea of a “language games” depends on the fact that language is part of norms and not standards developed by the natural evolution of the understanding developing self-consiounsess in relations to its existence)
In his work, Philosophical Investigations, Ludwig Wittgenstein regularly referred to the concept of language-games.[1] Wittgenstein rejected the idea that language is somehow separate and corresponding to reality, and he argued that concepts do not need to be clearly defined to be meaningful.[2] Wittgenstein used the term “language-game” to designate forms of language simpler than the entirety of a language itself, “consisting of language and the actions into which it is woven” (PI 7) and connected by family resemblance (Familienähnlichkeit). The concept was intended “to bring into prominence the fact that the speaking of language is part of an activity, or a form of life,” (PI 23) which gives language its meaning.
Thinking for oneself is in one sense to think based on language, which is logical structure for expressing thoughts to others and oneself.
Language tells you what you should be thinking about and how your thought should be structured to think. It is able to do this because language is inherently a code of thought. It is only following these that the description of something becomes noted. Formal logic strips the content of thinking away from the form, maintaining the latter without the former. In this way we become conscious of the structure of thinking. The problem with formal logic is that it fails to recognize something fundamental about the way language effects thought. In Language we consciously perceive logical structure such that it enters awareness, but it is not the conscious perception of it that receives it. Language speaks to the unconscious nature of thinking, and then the conscious becomes reflects that. Consciousness perceives the logical structure, the logical structure matches with an unconscious form, and that is later made aware of by the conscious. The integration of logic in language however cannot due away with the content of the thought and only maintain the form of thoughts.
Language is synthesis of informal and formal logic.
(?)The form of thoughts are in the first place abstracted relations of their content, because the content of thinking simply refers to the total form of relations occurring in the thought. The form without the content simply becomes an incomplete abstraction of itself.
The content of forms is their relations. This is why a beam of light is perceived as wave not particle.
The reality principle for example abstracts the most fundamental form of substance without the content of its relations. That whatever is outside reality is also reality, is undoubtedly true, but nevertheless incomplete because it does not explain what reality is actually, the content of it. It is true that scientific concepts follow from the reality principle, but that does not explain how the reality principles follow as the whole of its concepts. Space for example is the external quantity, that whatever is outside of space is but space itself. But this does not tell us how space being this principle constitutes reality,
In the first instance, reality lacks an explanation of substance, what causes the principle of reality to be the overbearing totality? Potentiality and actuality are usually stated to be mediated by reality because in reality there is the relation of potentiality and actuality. This formulation is example of the insufficiency of the reality principle explanation of substance.
Potentiality is said to be actual insofar as it is what ought to happen or what is to happen and in this way it is actual, but the lack of it yet happening renders it not real. But my potentiality is someone else’s reality, in their reality lies the actuality that my potentiality is becoming, their actual muscular body is my potentially muscular body. Reality is actual in the sense that it is what has happened and is continuing to happen. Yet reality is distinct from actuality because it is not what could happen, it lacks potentiality insofar as it is and not what it could be. What remains as the mediating principle between reality and potentiality is actuality. Actuality is the totality of the relation because it is what could potentially happen against what is happening, the struggle of the two. Actuality is the principle of mind which is the substance of reality. In the mind there is the dialectic between potentiality and reality.
Actuality, potentiality and reality are example of dialectical relation. The monotheistic religions can be differentiated in the way they appropriated this relation in the advertisement of the individual and the universal. Each religion emphasizes one principle in determining the others. Judaism takes reality as the starting position. They accept their sin as responsibility but they confuse the actuality of god with the brutal reality of man, god of the old testament, undermining the potentiality of man. The New Testament is precisely a critique and sublation of Judaism’s conceptualization of god but with it also undermined reality by saying man is by nature bad, original sin, and on some level saw themselves victims of their sin.
The reality of man is rectified in Christ whom encompasses the actuality of god and the potentiality of man, Christianity took god to be the actuality, the ideal, form of the human being, but it is not all that clear how such a wicked reality of humanity can ever attain the ideal that god encompasses. Dispensing precisely with this problem results Islam to idealize the potentiality that actuality exhibits and reality lacks, but in this way detaching the actuality of god from the reality of man.
(Add this to psychological distinction of the unconscious from the philosophical notion of consciousness)
(Jung approaching the unconscious- man cannot comprehend anything completely)
The limitation of human conscious is the projection of its limits onto the idea of consciousness generally. Consciousness generally is deliberation. It is a limit to see that the limit of some limit also has prevalence beyond that limit. For example, it is a limit of mine to see that my inability to swim extends to the limitation of some people’s ability to swim (?)
The study of chaos is the study of order because chaos is itself a first orderly principle, it placed things into flux, into that certain order.
Chaos occurs in successions of transition, periods of change. What seems as chaos is not random but the rearrangement of deliberative events for purpose. The limit of human conscious cannot in the onset see how the nature of the rearrangement in things are consistent with their intended purpose. It is not immediately obvious how the complexity of opposing elements form the same cohesion. For example take any event on its own isolate from the whole, and the event appears random, in relation to the whole, any event no matter how arbitrary it appears is some kind of reaction and function in the whole.
Self-consciousness is thought as the deconstruction of nature. Nature is the kind of balance whereby all the objects of thought interact against each other given their evolutionary acquired capabilities. In space for example, every action is unaffected and therefore is universal. (Atomist- Explain how in space there is no friction acting against force, therefore the slightest touch of something determined that object in motion indefinitely unless acted on by another force.) (add here how the universal is general)
The universal is premise and the particular is conclusion. The particular is the relation between universals forming conclusion. Conclusion is particular as it is a limit, why else would you conclude. Premise is universal for it is unlimited because it is unknown, the whole point of it is to be known. It is mortal conviction to determine that conclusions are universal in the sense of being final. It is equally mortal limitation for the premise to be based on confused reasoning.
These reprehensions are confusions in the apprehension of thought.
object of its thinking that thinks of its thinking
Gravitational waves proves that the universe is an organism. The human being, or life in general, serves as the consciousness of the universe- we are the variables that make up the consciousness in the mind of the universe. However this is not dependent on us but independent onto to us- and so we are the projection of its thinking in its mind. The truth of its consciousness exists in its mind- and this inclusive existence is the very means form its separate existence away from itself. It separating itself away from itself still must mean that it remains it self so that we can say it is separate from itself inside of itself because nothing is outside of itself. We are the object of its thinking that thinks of its thinking. Every object is its thought but only we are the object of its thinking aware of its thinking. And therefore we are the variables that make up its thinking- the individual that is the universal. Gravitational waves are the structure of the universe- the skeleton of the organism. Explain Newtons Gravity as a force between objects, Einstein saw Gravity as the distortion in spacetime fabric.
-Consciousness as away from itself
Science is the systematic disposition of understanding consciousness, it is an essetinal aspect in the development of self-consciousness (explain this further phen of mind 33). The subject matter of science is consciousness which is non-other then itself but as opposed to itself so as to conceive itself. But if it is already itself why does it need to distant itself from itself so as to understand itself? The kind of nature underpinning science, which is likewise consciousness; the latter bearing the concrete nature to the former as the abstract, consist of the dialectic movement. The actuality of consciousness as substance is the infinit movement of itself. Substance is in a dialogue with itself and its very negotiation postulates the concrete nature of matter, primarily motion as the essence of the object.
All recents conceptions that aim to provide an understanding of consciousness are reducible to the two following notions: first, consciousness is the universal substance directing the nature of matter. Second, consciousness is the essential nature belonging to the subjective character constituting life; this idea introduces the notion of variation in consciousness ranging from functional organisms towards the varying degrees in self-consciousness. Both notions are not exclusive from each other but their very unity is the defining element to the idea of development. First it is important to understand what the second point is not. The second notion of conscoiunsess does not mean that the nature of consciousness is subjective because it belongs to a particular entity with unique experiences. Ironically the scientific materialist claim to understanding the nature of consciousness as objective by demonstrating it through the active processes of neurones is used to elaborate the notion of consciousness as only a subjective phenomenon.
Every brain belonging particularly to a life form undergoes a process of neurological activity, and that is objective to every life form, however the kind of experiences that trigger neurones are unique to the individual, and by virtue of it being unique, each consciousness is different from every other consciousness. This difference between consciousness however presupposes an indication to an objective feature of consciousness; that each conscoiunsess unique to a particular is in contradiction with another consciousness. This very contradictions between consciousness itself constitutes an objective feature of consciousness, that each form of consciousness is related by virtue of its contradiction. Likewise whereas each particular life form undergoes a unique set of experiences, that is not the same to say that experience is unique to the particular. The way the particular experiences is unique but the experience itself, if it is to be that experience, is not unique. Experience at a particular moment of time is the variations of the experience.
The common expression the “you will never experience what I experience” means nothing more than you will never partake in that experience in that particular moment in time, but it does not mean that the experience itself is exclusive to the person experiencing by virtue of being at a particular moment of time, than every experience will different at every moment of time, and there would not be anything that can be called an experience, as we say, having a “common” experience .
The subjective consciousness is the variations of the universal consciousnesses. It is the experience of consciousness as the particular of itself. What is equally untrue which is what is not the first notion of consciousness, is the idea that consciousness is only one. The idea of God conceives consciousness as the one, but what is one belong to a thing that is one, in other words a variable, which presupposes that it is part of many single ones. If there are many ones, and consciousness belongs to the one, it than belongs to the many. So the notion of God as the one consciousness is really the idea that consciousness is the many ones, which is the consciousness that does not go beyond its self and therefore is canceled out as consciousness. It is ironically the consciousness that takes its subjectivity to the its own objectivity. That the subjective is the objective without that being objective and is therefore is the consciousness of the many ones without any one. It is the consciousness that is unconsciousness. If every one is worshiping God, which is the one, but the one is everyone, than every one is worshiping their own self.
awareness in relation to its environment and that constitutes consciousness. (Explain how every form of life distinguishes between things to survive, that is desire, and analytical science is like that, this is the understanding) (whereas reason synthesizes between things and this is what is meant by consciousness as self-consciousness, synoptic thinking as the driving force of science) in order for life to exhibits a subjective consciousness so as to distinguishes among its environment, but must have already been synthesized as a being capable of such distinction. Each form of live consists of the ability to analysis, as their driving nature, and their essential nature as already been synthesized. The latter achievement is the work of reason in the world, the work of consciousness as the universal substance in the world. The latter notion is not an idea of God; because in the idea of God, the will of God is the force of production in the world, that whatever God wills that translates into the creation of objects, much like the imagination, what ever one thinks, the image is produces in the mind. That is taken to characterize the nature of God. In the notion of Consciousness as the universal substance, there is no free will in the vulgar sense, but rather the modes of production is a process of dialogue, the process of pure reason, no emotion, no feelings, the laws of logic as the movement of rational dialogue. This is why nothing is merely given but produced and not without struggle, that being the contradiction reason portrays to itself with any proposition and such proposition is conceived as concrete existence with the resolution as the agreement of the resolution.
With this logical process it resolves in the final necessity; which is self-consciousness. Self-consciousness is the sublation of consciousness it is the next stage. With this stage the challenge of production of existence is compensated even more, for it is the first time where reason exhibits itself as not rational. That the element of free will, even in the vulgar sense, comes to a reality. But this is a logical necessity because it is the more virtuous, the ethical aspect to reason, that rather then reason exhibits its existence as determined contradiction and resolution, there is even the choice to partake in such a process, and the choosing to partake is the aspect of reason as the ethical actualization of its essence. For the choosing truly proves the ability of reason to possess the ability of being rational over its counterpart irrational. Reason can only conceive of itself if it satisfies itself ethically, for that is the true confirmation of its ability. The process of self-consciousness becomes the next stage in the actualization of reason in the universe. The process of evolution is the determining test to the reason in the world. If it all fails there is always the return again to reason as the basis of production, of Consciousness as unconsciousness.
Notion of the “observer”
The general notion of the observer is not the mere subjective aspects of individuals, in other words, it is not an accidental attribute of people — that just because there happens to be individuals and each individual is unique, that uniqueness in terms of, how they look, the place they occupy, and ultimately their conception of the world, the so called “observer” aspect of them is not a residue from these specific characteristics. The observer is more fundamental and is a primary physical phenomenon in nature, meaning that it has an effect on constituting the physical dynamics we take to be the basis of how the world is structured. The observer phenomena in quantum mechanics is one of those primary concepts in our science that bridges a connection between the laws of nature and the laws of reason. In other words, the laws of nature operating at the subatomic level, at the most minute levels of nature, exhibit a behaviour identical to phenomenas observed to be purely mental and abstract. The hypothesis is that the behaviour of matter at the atomic level is akin to the behaviour of self-conscious reason.
Out of body experience- near death experience
To explains the connection between the behaviour of reality at subatomic level and it’s relation to the way self-conscious reason conceives reality, take for example the out of body experience known as a “near death experience”. A witness of a near death experience recounts observing their body from a third person point of view, as if they have left their body and are seeing it from the outside, I.e., out-of-body experience.
The out-of-body experience is often followed by a vision of a tunnel, as if the first person point of view conception is entering upon a tunnel pathway into a light point. What we see at the subatomic level as the behaviour of particles, is in fact this process of consciousness happening at the first person point of view, say during a “near death experience” but more broadly, all phenomenons of consciousness have a corresponding physical phenomenon whether that be at the subatomic level, or from the macro scale level as well.
For example, people doing high doses of psychedelics experience “near death experiences” or the vision of leaving their body and entering upon a wavelength wormhole, i.e., tunnel. These are behaviours of consciousness which exhibited from the subatomic point of view as primary behaviour of elementary matter. When we look at matter from the microscopic level, we are seeing the behaviour of consciousness from a far away viewpoint.
What we observe as particles in the form of photons, leptons, bosons, are all elements of consciousness, they are not just elements of nature. These basic elements of nature are the conditions of abstract reality, but this is not to suggest they are devoid of reality, as in comparison when we say “concrete” because they are the conceptions, which forms a disclosure, in which a finite set of real events can take place. These particles are abstract because we do not have any sense of them as being physical objects in our ordinary experiences observable by the ordinary functioning of our sense organs. They are pure formulations as to how nature operates, and surely nature does operate that way as confirmed by direct empirical analysis.
The point is that they are the logic to the prerequisite for any event, the context in which consciousness can partake in a set of experiences, and the way consciousness can interact with its experience is observable from a point of view outside of it, or from a position much further away in both extensional and temporal dimensional magintude. To further reiterate the place of abstract reality in our concrete experience, take for example the “Brocken spectre” phenomenon, which is the magnified shadow of an observer cast upon clouds opposite to the Sun’s direction.
In this phenomenon the shadow of a discrete point like the person casting the shadow, is stretched and magnified out, as if the shadow is leaving the body of the person, and a rainbow circle bow enfolds around the shadow as of that shadow is entering a tunnel.
This weird yet interesting physical phenomenon at the macro-scale characterizes the effect of the observer on the phenomenon at the microscopic level.
Prior to the observation the matter is a wave spread or spectrum, this is the “tunnel” or the stretching and extension of the object itself where the observer resides. During observation, the matter is a discrete particle state, in other words, it has an identity, it is identified, the observer resides in it, like from the first person point of view, you are in your body, or even from the third, you are observing your body as a discrete point in a plain, as an object , say laying on the bushes.