HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Jan. 5, 2005 Conscious-willing-continuity anticipates its own superiority or anticipation of continuity as being above the rest of the mere continuous. There is the feeling of importance on an absolute scale. The question is: Is this anticipation of the c-w-c mirrored on the side of the solid continuity as such? Or, is it local to c-w-c alone? If we accept there is no one direction or position in the 'is' as such, can it still be anticipated in conscious continuity that itself continues in a higher juxtapose relative to the rest of the solidity? If there is no extra-ontological or extra-being as an outside recorder of 'is', can any implicit c-w-c anticipate in such a recording? No. It can not. It is indeed unable to claim such as it is an implicit continuity in 'is'. It is in dependant-definition inside solid 'is' and therefore subjected to eventual incomplete subjective will to the absolute/complete in definition in continuity and in ever diminishing continuity when in will to anticipate over-above of solid 'is'. Moreover, any anticipation on the 'existence' or 'possibility' of 'nothingness' is senseless and contradictory, because the proposition of 'nothingness' continues out of 'is' and because of all the ontological implications of that. Only ('something') – continuity can continue in 'is'. 'Nothingness' can not be or, continue in solid continuity in 'is' - it is contra-definitive in any defining act. It simply implies the opposite of continuation. So, can self-consciousness be fully explained in 'natural' terms – I mean, are there another dimension/reality/universe (with different/opposite 'physical' laws than this universe) with which our consciousness may be connected with via a kind of 'loophole/wormhole' on a micro level such as physical dimensions below that of atoms, quarks, etc. ? Is it a reality or not? Thus every discontinuation of a somethingness or the appearance of a space separating objects or solidity is in fact hidden continuity and thus suggestion of the natural solidity of existence – if there were spaces of actual nothingness or discontinuity between continuities or entities those very entities would not have been able to exist because there opposite would’ve had to create them. No continuity can appear out of non-continuity. There can not be things as such as that would imply distinctions inside continuity which is infinite or proper nothingness between the things and which allow for no causal flow from one entity into the next – every single thing would be its own creator. So, the answer to this dilemma seems to be that things are not and that there is only one solid state. And that is where conscious endeavour ends, because a continuity that points to an infinitely unsurpassable self or where it cannot abandon itself in order to ‘view’ or externally devoid of itself, qualify itself in the most absurd frustration possible, cannot suggest anything but itself. It is all there is, where ‘is’ signifies the all inclusive and imminent existential end. If we understand this, we can mean nothing and everything ……………… Previous philosophers had taken nature as primary, and asked how our cognitive capacities could lay hold of it. Kant takes those capacities as primary, and then deduces a priory limit of nature. The truth is however that this mode of thinking is set in an all too much arrogant and dignified air. We should understand that consciousness is a part of nature just like a tree or an atom and that it is a plain extension of natural facticity. This cognition or consciousness is but an ontological continuity. There are no “laying hold” of experience or sense data as “we” and “the objective world” are one, or in solid continuity. The process of photosynthesis might as well “lay hold” of its own “objective world” as it is a process in connection with a plant and elements such as sunlight and water. There are simply no individual environments or agents – it is one solid flowing. There can be no relative difference between consciousness and photosynthesis or a nuclear reaction, etc ... Nature or being as such is one solidity. There are no superiorities or gaps separating different intensities. It is merely eternal with the one “event” as good as the other or one happening being a local (non-absolute) effect and cause. We would seriously and passionately like to think that this awareness of ours is something fantastically exalted. And although we shall never be able to rid our selves of the true feeling we can never know (because of the infinitely solid unity of observation and perspective or, ontological position) the meaning of any event whether it be a biological process, explosion or even a human thought. Everything is levelled by infinite ontological connection - all is the same- we don’t know what controls that which seemingly has the control in every instance… The important thing to remember is that our projections of grand absolutes and relativities aren’t important or even happening outside the immediate human sphere. We are infinitely shrinking ‘dots’ in the ‘eternally expanding’ cosmos of the ‘is’ Things are as they are as they can’t be other than that. Things, including thoughts or awareness, or self-consciousness, can only proceed as they are allowed by their mere possibility. Nothing can happen if it’s not allowed to happen. Every action is a reaction finding itself in the middle of two adjacent actions which are themselves reactions and in that same relative position. We as human beings aren’t ontologically or properly aware of our environment in objectivity proper. Such objectivity proper would mean that the subject whom we are aware of is not in any instance connected to the specific awareness or judgement which we have of it, and thus it would inevitably be an incomplete awareness as it is in part generated or obscured by the subject itself. The agent is in fact inevitably a reaction in some intensity of the observed subject. That which allows for the mere perceiving of the observed and that which is truly ontologically ‘intended’ by the very connection of ‘subject’ and ‘agent’ is not revealed, as it is not necessary in the completion of the event. In nature, only that which is absolutely necessary and therefore allowed, happens. Any event is generated by exclusively that which is required and only leads in turn to that which is allowed for or made possible by the event. A ‘consciousness’ can not ‘gain’ any ‘bonus’ distance,(nothing is given by the ‘gods’ for free) or extra space so as to be slightly disconnected from the source and to the effect of it being objectively (discontinuous in relation) observant of the latter. It is so by the mere ontological requirement of any observation as being a reaction, or continuity of that being observed. Thus it follows that this humanly embellished and proudly exalted self-consciousness is not really that - it is like any other event or natural reaction also merely a naturally caused happening. It ultimately follows from the simple, but fundamental ontological mechanism which holds implicitly that as far and as intense as the 'environment’ stretches, as far and as intense follows the stretch of any inhabiting ‘observer’. In the ‘microcosm’ the inhabitants (building blocks, or generating mechanism of the microcosmic whole by mere presence and proliferation) are ‘micro’. Conversely, in the ‘macrocosm’ the inhabitants (also generator of latter) are ‘macro’. In each world the requirements are met if such facticity subsists – this means that it is not necessary that the particular world contains ‘inhabitants’ who reached their potential (limit). If we understand this utter connectivity it would become clear that being as such or the ‘is’ that comprises this absolute connectivity must ultimately be absolutely solid and static. The grandest question consequently remains – ‘what’; ‘where’; ‘how’ and ‘why’ is this ‘is’ as such? What is this absolute (container) past which we can not conceive? Perhaps more clearly, what is this inevitable contradiction and existential limit of “THE ANSWER”, or “THE TRUTH” And the question …. More on the presentation of ontological solidity: In the event of inquiry into the phenomenon of matter we inevitably find, in every instance of enlarging by means of Microscopic technology the ‘micro world’, the alternation of solid appearance and empty space. That is, as soon as an object seems solid it appears to be holed by empty space and in the succession of the microscopic investigation the latter, in turn, becomes solid. Thus, after the appearance of solidness the appearance of an emptiness or lack of solidity appears. Ontologically speaking we can find a very profound meaning or existential (natural) reference in this observation: this is the eternal play of the ‘one’ and the ‘not’. Being is in a non-absolute sense generated by a Binary force. The theses ‘leads’ to the antitheses. It is a constant falling and missing of the essential point of absolute inertia. Superficially, or from a practical point of view we can make the analogy with (human)nature, where after boredom comes interest and satisfaction, followed by boredom and dissatisfaction and again the cycle continues , ad in fin. But now again we must see that all this happening in alternations of the ‘one’ and the ‘not’, or ‘this’ and ‘its opposite’ there emerges once again a state of utter solidity or continuity. The seeming something ness and nothingness which plays in eternal alternation is but one object, or solid continuity. The two are sheer ‘tints’ of itself, like a pool of oily water shimmering a multitude of colours in the effect of the sun. It is the existential position of the agent that creates the oppositional reflection in utter solid continuity of the Is. The mere facticity of the ‘one’ infinitely occupying the ‘not’ and vice versa, refers to its very ontology of oneness - the alternation of solely two possibles in an infinitely close partnership. The superficial existence of the theses and antitheses should also be perceived on the following grounds: Abstractly, or essentially, the theses, or ‘one’ as such is fundamentally that which it is, because of its essential, defining characteristic. Its opposite does not have the latter’s’ definition, as that would defeat the observed distinction in the face of the oppositeness. Thus it follows that there can be no real transformation or progression from the ‘one’ into the ‘not’, if we conceive of a proper change into the other to be a continuous eventual line. The ‘one’ as defined by its essence can not even remotely anticipate any trait of the ‘not’, as such would be a violation of the conception of their separateness and absolutely ‘otherness’ in ‘relation’ to each other - they can ultimately not be compared to one another, as that would imply a common ground, or ‘link’ between the two. The ‘one’ and the ‘not’ should by absolute definition be completely ‘different’ or in utter contradiction with one another. It is an infinitely extreme alienation - this form of judgment must be accepted as an ultimate possibility or ontological facticity, as it is as far as the logical or possibilizing propositional thought can endeavour. Thus the ‘one’ can not anticipate the ‘not’. For this action would require an essential or defining facticity or means of the essential opposite. If there are at all ‘common ground’ there’s no real distinction, but a trivial increase or decrease in continuous ‘swell’, i.e. mere growth of the one and in the one that is disclosed. And so we find ourselves in such a one - it is the mere immediate ‘here’, or ontological, personal position. We can not ever anticipate the our ‘not’ - it is not defined. More on the solidity: The cause and effect likely does not exist as separate entities. Firstly, because the two must be ‘connected’ – consequently the whole happening is one continuous line – a broken line would mean that there is a separation of absolute nothingness, or ‘utter otherness’ than the essence of the continuous line. (A note on essences - here is either ‘this’ or ‘not this’. There can’t be degrees of ‘this’ and the ‘other’ so as to be a connection, then the two entities might as well be one - the slightest connotation or connection reference one entity.) Secondly, if they are connected ‘they’ are not, but there is ‘one’, or ‘this’ only. Nature is at once both and not both but one. The undergoing as such can not come from nothing and so there must be essence or true happening in. It is surely allowed in some way to be. But we must perceive that there can be no literal or real separate perspective less meaning in the perceiving, because it is not exposed in any remoteness to an absolute ontological, observing being that is validating it. And thereby we should not imply the falseness of its happening but the non- existing meaning or sense of its happening. Moreover, the effect of this resolution is that everything is true in happening - even the will to meaning or importance, though only the will to it - not the meaning itself. Being or ‘is’ itself is such that it flows in its very way through everything - that means that distinctions are not – everything is through one. These ‘distinctions’ are all in one position and direction - it merely exhibits different tints caused by momentous alteration in angle - like a mirror reflects different angles of the same thing. All the various efforts or behaviour are thus different shades of the one and only happening - that of the single being of the ‘is’. And so are all things, for example in nature there are no good or evil, they are the same one thing or action – endeavouring or happening in the face of the environment which will allow its survival. There is only the one action of exercising the ‘will’ or the power towards survival. The good action is a will or impulse of the good person who simply must be (act) good and can not other wards. It is being purely selfish in acting out its own instinctive ‘conviction’ or nature - and so it’s done against the evil one in neither rational, nor irrational conviction that it is right. The same it is with the evil. Thus they are both one and the same – mere action propelling forwards. Every thing is fiction or projection – as one acts towards the one end of affirmation the latter makes its own way constantly. It must justify itself the whole time, for there is no other justification possible. There is no definition set beforehand of what is good or evil. Either one happens constantly. It happens, also, into no direction of any kind – each and every action is affirming itself in utter connection and ultimate solidity with environment or nature. Furthermore, this affirmation and negation is an infinite unity, but not in the sense that the two separately act in a relationship, but that these two are in inexplicable, infinite alternation to the extent that they become an absurd singularity which is neither one nor two entities. It’s not binary or single - and it is not this and it is this, in the same principle of absurdity as the latter. The idea or perspective is pure magnetism - the object creates or attracts the subject and vice versa - a trivial process meaning nothing but that … And there can only be such an attraction because there is solidity ‘between’ the ‘two’ - if there is one gap separating the two there can never be connection, and again if there is no gap at all then there can only be solidity fully and absolutely complete. The proper is…. Presence and absence is at once one and the same – because the one creates and attracts the other in an infinity of alternation. Philosophy is when there is contemplation on the infinitely absurd connection of thesis and anti-thesis, or the eternally ascending and descending forces in such an abstract essence that the whole thing about cause and effect, the comfortable and uncomfortable, actions and reactions and that logical sifting of rational ends and origins become an utter state of boredom and the agent turns to the idea that it simply isn’t so – none of that really happens - it’s all just ontological solidity - it’s more absolute, beyond transcending even - it’s stranger and misty. He finds himself as so many times in the past in the same position. He is a process, or a binary loop. Can there ever be an end to becoming unsatisfied? Or, are we to remain the quintessentially shitting, farting, eating and magnetised processes of actions and reactions - the bodies with certain attributes and programmed reaction towards specific impulses? What can be so meaningful in a world where thoughts are pure physical effects of other processes and where all is a flux of one ‘is’? It can mean merely itself, and then again, not!… but for how long? May the next inundation, no, the inevitable indulgence has its turn… Gods? If a god has Being or exists as such, he is ranked below Is or Being as such. Being was there before any gods. Being could not have been created, ‘cause then there (a reference to some being) must have been something in existence in order to create Being, which implies that Being was there before Being, otherwise something non-existent created Being. So, for gods to be absolute and supreme they must not Be there as such (having the attribute of being - participating in Being (that which makes their own existence possible) - they must be non-existent. So the only truly absolute and consequently, the only almighty gods are those ones not in existence, for if a god requires Being as such to exist he can not be almighty - then Being is greater than any god, I mean, it allow the gods to exist… On the other hand, if we argue that God is Being as such then He can be no creator, for Being does not create but merely be - i.e. being can not be just an empty container, it must contain some things, and naturally it cannot help to contain stuff, I mean the stuff is what constitutes Being as such. The world is not a presence, or an absence, for presence in any instance is in continuity with a cause, or origin and as such it requires an explanation or possibility and that in transcending form. Every instance has its own spawning environment or its ontological possibility which logically must be greater than the contained effect as it allowed for the effect’s existence. The world or Being as such has none. Being, ultimately because of its own absurd and infinite greatness and ontological realness. Its intensity is so much beyond itself to the extent that it is unknown in every mode; unaccounted for - nothing is conscious of it and as an eventual definitive these projections or recoils of interpretation are not absolutely possible, hence they are not in any mode whatsoever possible as the only possibles are absolutes. It is meaningless to project infinities or transcendental as definitions or possibles, for they are not ends or entities themselves. There are no whole instances of them and thus, without a complete experience or perspective are rendered meaningless proper. Moreover, we cannot say that this principle of infinity merely continues thus, as it would be an incomplete judgement and in the defining act, without meaning. And so the question arises: How can this all be in such intensity and still without meaning? It is that precise absence of meaning - which is not at all an absence as it is not an ending concept - which is the whole meaning, or definition of life - the actuality is that in our own words – whatever they may or may not mean - we are here as existing Human Beings. The form of meaning which we pursue are the most absurd form of the instance of meaning, as that would require a Human Being to discard his life in every definition in order to attain a complete perspective of life in the absence of a Human Being, or in other words in the presence of some other indefinable form of being - indeed in some other state as that of Being itself of which we cannot contemplate as contemplation itself is an instance of Being. We can never be separated from Being in order to view the other-than-Being absurdity - it is pure contradiction as we have seen earlier. The mere facticity of our discussion of it renders the discussion as not being a discussion of it as we are continuing in the facticity and qualities of Being and nothing else. But to return to the meaning of our personal experiences or understanding, it can simply mean just that - we are as we are, or that we are. We can never justly dismiss our self-consciousness (whatever that is) or the very contemplation which we contemplate. Whatever presence or Being as such may mean in the most ontological, most absolute form(whatever that may mean) possible, something is going on here - all of this is not in absolute, pure absence, for even absence or dreaming is eventual, or existence, or whatever. We must, via our mere confusion; nothingness, infinity, meaninglessness, or anything for that mater have some remote form of meaning or truth or existence. I mean this - whatever it is - is existence. Even if (and it’s certainly meaningless outside the personal sphere) all is senseless it still is meaningful in some form or another. At least this is not utter, absolute nothingness - or is it? Well, if it is absurd, it is at least absurd. The thing is, whatever we think, believe or experience, we can never discover its real meaning - not even this last thought’s meaning. Whatever and however this is, it is not the absolute or highest or lowest - it’s something and somewhere in no position in infinity- whatever that is. A note to the misguided fools of righteousness- There are no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, only repulsion and delight - or, relatively comfortable spots --- ------------ About the author Werner Reyneke: I am a 23 year old passionate writer/poet in my spare time and a computer programmer by proffession. Visit my website to see my first published book. I live in South Africa and have been published in a local newspaper (some poems in Haiku form) for the first time in February 2000. I have also been selected for publication in a VoicesNet Anthology (visit www.Voicesnet.org) and a Poetry.com (ILP Publishers) anthology called "Eternal Portraits"). Visit my website at: http://myweb.absa.co.za/wreyneke/Mybook.htm Email: wreyneke@absamail.co.za Tell a friend about this site! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED! |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
