Functions

I am, as ever, not entirely happy with part of the definition of the awareness I gave in the post, er, 'Definition?'. It could quite easily be asked: why cannot there be a function that supplies the appropriate manner of reacting in any particular circumstance? After all, the empithym themselves are essentially appropriate manners of reacting to particular circumstances. Why is the manner in which they are picked out not entirely autonomous, requiring no conscious element?

It appears that my original answer requires more clarification to ensure its veracity. Any such function would be have to engage with empithym in some way. It would also have to engage with all empithym simultaneously (or, at least, the collection of most significant empithym that consitute the typical day) to be successful in providing the appropriate action for any situation. However, empithym are modified depending on the result of their employment. Any empithym employed would therefore immediately change as a result of its employment. It would therefore no longer be the chosen empithym, and the situation would have changed as a consequence. Given that any employment of an empithym causes it to change - aargh! There is something here, I feel it, but for the moment it eludes me. This is deeply frustrating.

Definition?

Following on from yesterday, let us engage more in the study of what produces the reflexive consciousness. Since empithym formation is a continuous process, it in turn continually affects and adjusts the manner in which the self expresses energy at the world (explanation: I am using 'expresses energy' as a catch all for any kind of physical interaction. Kicking a ball expresses kinetic energy and so on. No mystical/non-philosophical content is implied). This in turn affects the sense-data which adjusts the satisfaction levels of the impeti. There is thus a loop.

Since we are not permitting any kind of empirical knowledge into our discussion (as what we seek are the necessary requirements of such knowledge) we are free to ask how this loop operates in a purely philosophical (Kant would say transcendental) sense.

Now, when we encounter an object we have experienced before, we experience it as being bound up with what we learned from that past encounter. Say we pick an apple out of a bowl of fruit. Our inclinations towards it will be determined by our past experiences, not simply of the apple but of all the other aspects of that situation (leaving aside for the moment the class of pre-built object-seeking impeti such as iSex or iFood. I do rather enjoy the convergence of this system of abbreviation with certain unnamed musical devices). First of all, we require a mechanism that selects the empithym associated with the apple. This requires that we have a mechanism that is aware of empithym - yet empithym are, on a physicalist paradigm, awareness themselves. The limitations of some kind of functionalist input - output model become obvious. We have the input, but we require another step to determine what that input is and, bound up with that, how to deal with it. We thus require a second-level awareness - awareness of the fact that one is aware. This is the reflexive awareness, which permits the understanding of the self as an object. This definition is more satisfying than the one I held previously, as it provides a good path in to a determination of a potenital satisfier for iPurpose. It is not a particularly rigorous definition, but is sufficient for the present purpose. Boom boom.

A thought struck me while watching some war film last night, which acquires added meaning in the context of above. Since this would imply an essential dichotomy to consciousness, between satisfaction and dissatisfaction, this would render any particular purpose as being some form of struggle to overcome. This would mean that our sense of purpose would be most satisfied when carrying out this struggle. As this would be some form of modification of sense data to a more satisfactory level, it would become, in effect, the Self vs. the Universe. With the addition of iHarmony into the mix, I think I begin to see an outline.

Feeling Bursts

After this year of purposely ignoring parts of what is otherwise known as my emotions, they have burst into prominence again, with such strength and freshness that heark back to my teenage years. Do emotions gain in strength when held in abeyance? A peculiar notion, as though the impeti were stored up until released. Rather, I suspect, the decline in satisfaction of a particular impeti merely means than upon its satisfaction the feeling is as intense as when it was new-minted. This bears back to the relationship the impeti possess with time. They cannot simply be fulfilled once and be complete, but require constant fulfilment over time. This means that a way of living, a form of life, that the impeti encounter as satisfying acquires an instrinsic value. We can thus hypothesise that iStructure seeks patterns of satisfaction of the other impei. This manifests itself as empithym, a replacement for the outdated term 'concept' which allows for the binding together of the experience of objects in spatial terms and their relation to the impeti. Since iPurpose cannot be fulfilled by a particular goal but must rather be constantly fulfilled, the ultimate satisfier of iPurpose is therefore a particular form a life, a way of encountering the world.

I thus seek a particular form of life with sufficient authority and sufficient similarity to the self. This, as I have already said, must be derived from the reflexive awareness to have universal sufficiency. To do this, I require a more satisfactory definition of what the reflexive awareness is than I have previously used, as the 'spiralling to infinity' device lacks precision.

The sense information of our first meeting with the world and its effects upon the impeti are logged, and that log impacts upon the way we continue to encounter the world. If we have previously encountered an object as satisfying, in our next encounter with that object will be an inclination to achieve the same satisfaction from that object again. However, this relation presents a problem: When does it happen? The satisfaction of the impeti is bound to time. However, satisfaction does not produce inclination. Only awareness of an object as being satisfying can do that. There is one impeti that is expressly satisfied without an object as a determinant: iStructure. This impels the investigation of the sensed world, and is satisfied by that investigation. However, alongside that investigation other impeti are or are not satisfied as particular objects are encountered and acted upon. This does not produce an inclination towards them, however, as that inclination can only be produced by an empithym of a particular object as being satisfying.

This is because an inclination requires something that is preserved over time. Satisfaction levels are not. This means that if iStructure leads the self to encounter an object that is satisfying, the self is equally likely to engage more with it as to dissassociate with it. Thus, when empithym are produced from a particular impeti, the impeti inclines the self towards the repetition of the circumstances of the formation of that empithym.

This is where it gets tricky. More on this soon. I shall endeavour to continue with a proper definition of the reflexive consciousness, and try not to use the word 'satisfaction' quite as much.

The yes in the dark

Purposes tend to be derived from something that is explicitly not the self. We can see this by giving examples of various proposed ways of living one's life: in the Triumvirate, principles are derived from a figure of sufficient authority, for which one labours. These take the form of absolute commandments, 'Thou shalt not kill' and similar. They are explicit ways of directing one's energy towards a definite goal, and thus defining one's purpose. This pattern is repeated in Hinduism and Buddhism: here, it is the nature of the universe, or samsara, that supplies the principles of right action, again directed towards a goal. These goals are characterised as periods of bliss, when all the impeti are absolutely satisfied. Since some of the impeti are mutually contradictory in this respect (for example, Power & Harmony cannot be absolutely satisfied at the same time) these goals are false.

We also have the more modern defined ethics of the philosophers, the most important examples of which are utilitarianism and Kant's Categorical Imperative. Both supply external principles which are validated by their seeming correct; but fail with regard to the fact that they only seem correct when one is already embedded in a particular way of life, or course of ethical tradition: in this case Christianity. They do, however, count as purposes for the, well, purpose of this exposition, inasmuch as they are external guides to energy expression.

It therefore seems that if I seek to find a purpose in the reflexive consciousness itself, it must be a universal caused by the nature of that consciousness. I therefore ask the question again: what separates it from the rest of the experienced world? What makes it? What makes even the most basic form of it imaginable, a perception of a single dimension, a single impeti and a single method of expressing energy, a tiny yes in the darkness? To be sure, the value of consciousness is to consciousness itself, but what gives it its own value? The reflexive relation that results when the impeti encounter the world must be examined in greater depth.

A back issue

A question occurs, a way in which this approach could be challenged. Why should experience have conditions attached? Why cannot it simply be, without all the impeti and other devices postulated? Now, I could answer this question by appealing to the impeti themselves, but that would be to fight a challenge to a paradigm from within a paradigm, and thus not fight it at all. There is, however, another route open to me.

If we consider what would be the case if there were no conditions upon awareness, then we instantly see why there must be. If awareness were unbounded, simply obtaining, then it would of necessity be infinite and not temporally bound. In other words, there must be conditions upon our awareness, else it would be limitless. There must be constraints, and my previous work has dealt with the nature of these constraints. Now I aim towards their ultimate satisfaction.

On that subject, it occurs that I should potentially look into the birth of the reflexive awareness itself. This is a murky area, but what seems certain is that when the world is first encountered, it is undivided. It is only when a sense impression is associated with a satisfaction of a drive bound up with a record of that association that something is encountered as an object of awareness. All of a sudden, the world blossoms and our nascent consciousness forms. Its scope is a single impeti and single object, but that rapidly expands, until we become fully aware. But what happens at the reflexion?