Practical Philosophy

The title is typically taken to be an oxymoron, which is somewhat ironic as my research points towards all of us being controlled by one particular philosophy or another. It is therefore the very essence of practice; that which is required by practice itself. But I have a different concern here. My aim is to discuss what implications the theory of Impeti may have for one's ability to use one's own mind.
Firstly, consider empithym. As packets of information connected by a system of association via common elements, they constitute thought. However, this thought, and the learning required for it, is typically used in a 'messy' and inefficient way. To facilitate understanding, which in effect means to bring the common ground between empithym into significance within fSummarise, we can learn to use this system more effectively.
Learning is, in effect, the acquisition of new connections (and thus 'higher-level' empithym, to allow a logical hierarchy). These are rendered more significant - and thus learned more effectively - if those connections are immediately embedded as empithym. The manner in which I visualise it within fShadow is by superimposing images of the connected experiences upon each other, or in the case of non-visual concepts representing them with words connected by lines. This is particularly effective when learning languages: combining the new word with the old empithym aids in embedding that word within the potential patterns of action. Repitition of this action ensures success.
This implies that old-fashioned learning by rote and more contemporary visually- and interactively- aided learning will both be successful, but it is only in their combination that they are most efficient. My own experiences teaching English bear this out.
The second technique is advanced mood alteration. The encounter of something significant in a negative sense has a variety of effects, all of which can be altered by changing the focus upon which empithym are being formed. Why is something significant? What are the impeti in terms of which it has significance? What empithym do you possess that could render it so? If these questions are answered, then a new empithym can begin to form that removes the sense of dissatisfaction that clouds the reflexive consciousness by encountering the world in a different manner. Consciousness is reformed to understand that the world now operates in a different way, and seeks satisfaction in this new pattern.
This is neither a simple or a quick process - the speed of empithym formation and dissolution is not determined a priori, and will therefore change from person to person. It is, however, far more efficient than simply waiting until you feel better. The important thing to note is that in the case of typically strong impei, e.g. iLove and iHarmony, the strongly significant empithym derived from these will always take longer to change than the brief modifications of something like iDisturbance. Conciousness's aim is to overcome the universe, after all, and there is no reason for the universe to be conducive to this process. If you can succeed in reforming your empithym to find a new way to achieve satisfaction despite this adversity, you will always at least be content. This is the part iEnable plays within the impeti, after all.

The State of Play

At present, I can give an outline of a definition of an a priori purpose, given in the form of consciousness itself, that is necessary and thus universal. That meaning, that purpose for existence is to overcome the universe. Is it possible to derive a list of actions from this principle that aid in identifying the path towards its fulfilment? First of all, let us study the impeti it is intended to satisfy. iPurpose is derived from iEnable and iHarmony, along with the nature of the reflexive consciousness. iEnable assigns all objects an extrinsic value based upon how they can be used as a tool to satisfy other impeti. Since the reflexive consciousness also views the self as an object situated within the world, iEnable attempts to assign a particular purpose upon the self in terms of the other impeti. Since the self is, by and large, the impeti, this necessarily fails and leaves an area of dissatisfaction. iHarmony identifies a particular class of objects as being similar to the self (in this case people) and produces the inclination to spend time in their company. This permits iEnable to identify a purpose for objects such as the self based on the actions of others. Although iHarmony is somewhat efficient, we can aid its satisfaction by using an a priori criterion for identifying the similar. This is the broad pattern of impeti that constitutes the human consciousness. With the purpose for this consciousness identified above, we can claim that our purpose is to overcome the universe for the satisfaction of the impeti - not simply for ourselves, but for the satisfaction of all the elements of the Greater Self - all of mankind.

Focus

How can the world be determined before our awareness? I have to hypothesise the same entity as Kant, namely Space. The faculty of Space permits the division of the world into objects by determining that elements of the world have differences in terms of spatial relations. This is required for our awareness of them, and since our awareness is predicated upon the singularity of a focus, Space is necessary.

The singularity of our focus is also necessary. If we were able, in reality, to focus on two things at once, we would have two paths of memory and thus two potential ways of reacting that could contradict each other. Note that this does not prevent us from performing two tasks at once - to take a very domestic example, one can iron and watch the television at the same time as long as the empithym of ironing is sufficiently strong. This is because the awareness need not react to the object of the focus, but rather simply react in general with a particular patten of energy expression. Think of driving, when the words we use to describe our actions in a car merge the car into the self: 'I turned right' 'I reversed'. Those are our reactions to the particular point of significance in the situation, disregarding the embedded reactions to simply sitting behind the wheel. Our language, after all, tells a story of potential points of significance.

Functions (2)

The key to resolving this issue is to accept that any kind of selective function would require access to the world as well as empithym. The process of empithym formation would therefore be independent of the function, leaving us with a kind of dual awareness, in which our experiences are memorised by one awareness while at the same time another awareness determines the appropriate response by comparing already existent empithym with the present. This would imply that what we think are our memories are in fact the products of a second system running alongside and coextensive with our awareness. In order for our second-order awareness to determine the appropriate response to a given situation, the sense-data with which it is presented must already be determined in terms of significance, by percieving the world through a matrix of assigned empithym. Thus, the 'raw' sense-data must be filtered by both the impeti and the empithym into the significant and non-significant. The function would therefore see the world with the potential array of actions and significances already given to it. We thus have the 'raw' empithym data and the 'signified' function data.

An empithym of a particular object is formed as a consequence of experience of that object by what I shall call the Raw faculty. While this experience is determined by the world, the world is to a certain extent determined by the energy expressed by the function. The manner in which significance is determined by the function is given by empithym. Thus, we have a situation in which the motive for the action of the function is determined by an empithym which is partly determined by the action of the function. There is a loop here. We have a self-determining function, a function which defines its own criteria of action. It is a function that is also aware, quite apart from being self-determining. It is aware within a pattern of significance that is partly self-determined. The criteria for it being aware of anything are that it is significant within the data provided by the sensible faculties. In the determination of what is significant, it itself acquires significance and thus becomes aware of itself. We thus have the reflexive awareness. We have ourselves.

To complete this proof I also require some kind of evidence that the sensible faculties operate by maintaining focus on a single object over time, to allow this self-determination.