BEING, MIND AND THE ABSOLUTE
THREE LEVELS OF RELATIONSHIP IN THE WORLD
ANIL MITRA PHD, COPYRIGHT © 1999 REVISED May 2004
OUTLINE
Consciousness, Mind and Nature | Consciousness, Mind and the World | Being and the Absolute
CONTENTS
1 CONSCIOUSNESS, MIND AND NATURE
2 CONSCIOUSNESS, MIND AND THE WORLD
2.1 Exploration of consciousness and mind
2.2 An individual has multiple centers of consciousness
2.3 The many consciousnesses in the world constitute a single consciousness
2.4 The world and consciousness are identical
3.3 What are the transformations and dynamics of being?
3.4 Being through time… And absolute being - beyond time
3.5 This absolute must be the one consciousness
My thought on mind and consciousness and their place in the world is at three levels. The first level is scientific. At this level I seek to understand and explain mind and its characteristics, especially consciousness, as a part of the biological and physical world that in its elemental description -i.e. physical and biological- contains no explicit reference to mind. At this level my thinking is informed by the recent work on consciousness and, more generally, by the Western Tradition
Before continuing, I want to make some comments on the biological and physical world or biophysical world. I include both biology and physics because I do not want to get into a biology vs. physics debate; that is not a topic without interest but, relative to the concerns of this essay, it is marginal. My second comment is that the biophysical world is usually thought by most academic workers in philosophy, science and related fields in the English speaking world to encompass or constitute nature. The precise definition of nature is not important but it includes the ideas of being elemental, having full and independent existence, something that is not constructed or reconstructed by man and society. Mind is usually thought to be part of nature but not possessed of fully independent existence, i.e., while mind may not be reducible to [biophysical] nature, it is caused by or explainable in terms of [biophysical] nature. Finally, I believe that there is exactly one world in the metaphysical sense and, relative to that meaning, have been using “world” in a common metaphorical way
At the second level I see mind as having an existence that is independent of the [biophysical] natural world and the questions of priority and relationship between mind and nature arise. This split is dependent on a concept of nature that is materialist in that the fundamental elements of nature are defined in physics and biology. I believe that many - though certainly not all - academic workers in science and philosophy in the English speaking world find the idea of mind as something outside of nature, even in its biophysical sense, as incorrect and incomprehensible. The expectation is that mind, like life, will yield to naturalist-materialist explanation. [This is not a one dimensional attitude in that materialism comes in a number of forms: explicit materialism - also called central state materialism or physicalism when referring to mind, behaviorism, functionalism, computer functionalism and cognitivism, and biological naturalism.]
My position at this second level, simply stated, is as follows. The establishment of any system of explanation occurs through success rather than explicit proof. There are good reasons - scientific and existential - to consider alternatives to any narrow naturalism. It is valid, while paying adequate heed to Occam’s principle of economy of hypotheses, to combine systems of explanation - but not to confuse them. It is important to be imaginative in the generation but rigorous in the [final] selection of ideas. My position here is naturalist but not materialist: it recognizes mind as a fully independent element of nature. The attitude is not essentially anti-materialist, for it leaves open the relative weights, distributions and relations to be attached to matter, life and mind. Once this general position is established, it forms the framework for further ontological specification. An example of this is considered below in the second circle, Consciousness, Mind and World
There are various problems related to the assignment of an independent ontological status to mind. These may be summed up under “tradition” but include the scientific world view or materialism and common sense. However, this tradition has not at all succeeded in explaining mind in its own terms and therefore mind stands as a very real reminder of the possibility of ontological or metaphysical incompleteness of the tradition. It is therefore reasonable to entertain an ontologically independent status for mind
The idea or possibility of an independent ontological status to mind [implied by the second level] is itself questionable in that mind itself or mind and matter together may be ontologically or explanatorily insufficient principles. Thus I entertain a third level, the level of Being, at which the nature of being is much an unknown as it is a given. As an alternate to the idea of Being, I have recently been considering the system of concepts that center on the Noumenon as described by Kant and Schopenhauer; however the development of this possibility is something that I am currently working with and is not yet ready for communication
When I stated above that the first level is scientific, I did not imply that the second and third levels are not scientific in content or are counter-scientific in attitude. Rather, I meant that -at the present stage of development- science [as usually construed] must be supplemented by philosophy and constructive imagination in order to obtain a picture of mind and world
I have been attempting to work out the relations at the three levels for a while. One of the problems that arise, especially at the second level, is that there are a number of interdependent ideas that require mutual formulation - it is not sufficient to focus on each idea and work [modify] it in isolation. Thus in the fall of 1998, while hiking in the mountains of Northern California, I conceived of a certain set of relationships, arranged in a circle, among mind, minds and world… I scribbled down the ideas on a scrap of paper and, later, wrote them up as Consciousness, Mind and World: A Circle of Relationship and Understanding Centered in Consciousness and the Phenomena - the Second of Three Circles. At the same time I also worked out a third circle… Being and the Absolute and, for completeness, the first circle… Consciousness, Mind and Nature: A Circle of Relationship and Understanding Centered in Science and Nature
The set of details of each circle is worked out in a text article. The text for the first circle is a separate document, Problems in the Science and Philosophy of Mind [Philosophy of Mind and Consciousness]. The articles for Consciousness, Mind and World and for Being and the Absolute are part of the present web document
The text article for the first circle is a structured and comprehensive review of the problems of mind and consciousness. The focus is on modern research in consciousness and considers alternatives and solution frameworks. In this first article I consider what it means to have a materialist or naturalist [in the limited sense] explanation of mind and consciousness. I suggest that our concepts of matter may be radically changed as prerequisite to establishment of such explanations
In the second article, Consciousness, Mind and the World I find an approach that some persons will label absolute idealism. Any such approach will necessarily have a basis in unifying concepts. The present approach has the following additional characteristics:
It is founded in natural observation and reflection
It requires significant reworking of the nature of the idea, and ideational relations. The work finds that our common notion of the idea lacks scope and substance
The progression from a limited to a more encompassing naturalism and, specifically, the relations within mind, among minds and among mind and world considered in the second article open up considerations on relations among world, mind, actual and absolute being. [Such considerations remain naturalistic and stand indifferent to any impressed theism.] These topics are the contents of Being and the Absolute
The question of sources and acknowledgements is complex. Philosophy of Mind and Consciousness includes some discussion of the issue and a bibliography and reference section. My thinking regarding the second and third circles does not draw as significantly from the literature. This is not to say that my ideas regarding idealism and being are pure creations even though my thinking has been fairly independent. The concepts of idealism are part of a number of cultural heritages. The idea of Being has been with us explicitly since Aristotle, and the idea of Being as a question is suggested by analogy with algebra [solve the equation f[x] = 0] or the idea of philosophy that includes the question “what is philosophy?” Thus my indebtedness to thinkers such as Husserl and Heidegger is less direct than may be thought even though I do have some acquaintance with Being and Time and with Husserl’s thought. My real debt is to the various cultures and to the great natural universe within which I live
Anil Mitra
October, 1999
No further action needed for Journey in Being
I have reviewed the content and the essence of those ideas and arguments with which I agree have been absorbed elsewhere, primarily to Journey in Being
Relative to the frames and the HTMLHelp formats, the present straight html version is most current [changes are minor]
Commentary: I have come quite some distance since writing this essay: my understanding of mind, consciousness, being is far advanced relative to where I was
I no longer subscribe or need to subscribe to any idealism to understand the place of mind… I used the idealism of this essay because of the difficulty of incorporating mind in a materialist framework and the point that the idea was much more concrete than imagined has become the point that matter, mental content are not the definite and separate entities we may think them to be… and the difficulty of the mind / matter question has been absorbed into an analysis of the objects and our understanding of them
My approach to understanding, especially the generalized transcendental method, which, though not new, has become much more refined, more powerful, more direct and stripped of parochial logic
Further action if and when I decide to focus on mind / consciousness: Here is what may be useful
The logic of the “graded” idealism
Some insights such as the diffusion of consciousness and identity
Suggestions for research
Note, however, that even though Journey in Being is not specialist it often goes far beyond the present essay in its own domain. Therefore, various suggestions for research / thought are resolved while others are more clearly stated… an example is the binding problem of consciousness
The following quotes from the foregoing
“My thought on mind and consciousness and their place in the world is at three levels; the first level is scientific…
At the second level I see mind as having an existence that is independent of the [biophysical] natural world… the origin of this thought is in the deficiencies of the western scientific-materialist tradition that, despite its immense power and apparent subsumption of all categories, not at all succeeded in explaining mind in its own terms and therefore mind stands as a very real reminder of the possibility of ontological or metaphysical incompleteness of the tradition
The idea or possibility of an independent ontological status to mind [implied by the second level] is itself questionable in that mind itself or mind and matter together may be ontologically or explanatorily insufficient principles. Thus I entertain a third level of understanding, the level of Being, at which the nature of being is much an unknown as it is a given…”
It is at this point that my recent thought, Journey in Being, takes on new shape – the nature of being need not be given because being itself is not given. At the same time the seeds of the theory underlying this idea – the theory of the void or of nothingness – are contained in the third level of understanding that includes known and unknown elements… Also note that in the present document I developed a radical idealism that I now thoroughly repudiate and not because it is wrong so much as unnecessary; and it involves the introduction, not of distinction for the mind – matter distinction has been shown to be moot, but because it introduces definiteness in understanding where there is no final definiteness in the world… which is good in that the world is open and therefore lovely
It should be noted that the void or nothingness is not at all a simple object…
The following “circles of relationship” appear as circles in the HTML version
A Circle of Relationship and Understanding Centered in Science and Nature - the First Circle
1. Exploration of Consciousness and Mind
Experience of the world including experiments and exploration… The idea and concepts… The Phenomena or Phenomenology: varieties and sub-concepts, words and vocabulary
2. Psychology and Sociology of Consciousness
A general map of mind or mental phenomena… including consciousness as a province. Can consciousness be reduced to or explained by other psychological or social phenomena? Is consciousness a unity… or does an individual have many centers of consciousness? Consciousness and awareness… The binding problem, attention and memory… The society of conscious entities shows the psychology and sociology to be continuous and the distinction artificial
The sociology may also speak to the nature of consciousness - what it is or how it appears, and as a certain kind of awareness… and its origins, how it arises - whether society and culture construct it, cultivate it or alert us to it. Note… I regard subjectivity and consciousness to be part of psychology. Julian Jaynes
3. The Biology and Physics of Consciousness
Physics… the existence of consciousness may place requirements on physics. Will this entail modifications to the physics of today? To what additional extent will physics be necessary to explain consciousness… the ideas of Penrose. Issue of determinism
Biology… biological underpinnings of consciousness… Neuroscience, endocrine and immune systems… Aspects of cell biology and biochemistry… Brain, body and body image… Ecology of consciousness… Evolution of consciousness
Anthropology
Francis Crick, Israel Rosenfield, Roger Penrose
4. Consciousness, Computers and AI
Cognitive science and consciousness… Strong AI - information processing model of consciousness: an evaluation. Weak AI
How to get a machine to think… to be conscious… Hardware issues… Coevolution of software and hardware…Machines and biology… Machines that reproduce
Daniel Dennett, Bernard Baars
5. Philosophy of Consciousness
Aspects of the philosophy of mind… Dualism… Issue of determinism… Behaviorism and behavior… Functionalism… While clear-cut distinctions are not possible the emphasis here is practical, analytic… metaphysics is deferred to the second circle
What is consciousness? Recognizing consciousness… Fundamental problem of consciousness… Need for new “psycho-physical” principles?
Gedanken experiments - silicon brains, zombies
The place of consciousness in nature… Evolution of consciousness… Anthropology and consciousness
Thomas Nagel, John R. Searle, David Chalmers
A Circle of Relationship and Understanding Centered in Consciousness and the Phenomena - the Second Circle
1. Exploration of Consciousness and Mind
Experience of the world including experiments and exploration… The idea and concepts…. The Phenomena or Phenomenology: varieties and sub-concepts, words and vocabulary
2. An Individual Has Multiple Centers of Consciousness
Individual consciousness that appears to be one and centralized is, in fact, many… or distributed. Therefore the world, in that it contains a distribution of individuals, has or is a distribution of consciousnesses or awarenesses
Issues
The binding problem… or is it a problem. Binding, attention and memory… Similarity and difference between binding for the individual and for the world… Is there a distinction between awareness and consciousness? Fundamentally, I think not
3. The Many Consciousnesses in the World Constitute a Single Consciousness
Although this is in analogy with item 2, this needs to be shown… Demonstration includes generalization and predictive power… and is not merely by argument or proof
Issues
In what sense are the many consciousnesses one? … Unity of consciousness does not rule out dualism: world/mind… and object/subject. A particular case of dualism: world includes mind
4. The World and Consciousness Are Identical
This is consistent with idealism and materialism… or the absence of a specification of either. In a materialist framework the problem of showing how consciousness, subjectivity arise in matter
In an idealist interpretation, the limit in which consciousness is absent is the material case. This requires a new conceptualization of the idea and re-working of the language of the idea. Idealism, when understood is an excellent approach to ontology, minimizes its hypothetical character… and integrates mind, being, matter, and empiricism
Exploration - completes this circle as an ongoing circle of action by placing ideas in the world… and opens up the next circle of Being and the Absolute
In general - transformation of world, ideas and symbols… in which old and new are balanced by stability and process needs… based in a dynamically complete system of common experience
In the present study the consciousness-concept is revised to cover the experience… the “trap” of established meanings and paradigms is difficult to avoid. The revision of the concept of consciousness, in turn, finds world and idea to be of the same kind and their relation to be dynamic
A Circle of Relationship and Understanding Centered in Being - the Third Circle
1. The idea of Being… what is most fundamental?
In contrast to the usual monism or dualism the idea of being starts with the question of the nature of being. Criteria - including directness and common observation - and candidates are considered and the form of being in which human being participates is chosen
The nature of the levels - they show increasing vitality, awareness reflexivity in awareness, and completeness
The levels are matter, life, being as aware, self-aware, self-transparent, complete within itself, and that knows and is all
Modes of being were considered in the second circle, Consciousness, Mind and the World
3. What are the Transformations and Dynamics of Being?
The elements of the dynamics are being, meaning and action. Meaning is placement in the real; it is a condition of being… though not always recognized. Action includes choice
The dynamic is that through meaning, being is in relationship; relationship generates action; and action is or equates to change in being
4. Being through Time… and Absolute Being - Beyond Time
Significant durations of time for a being are the instant… and the life span
In the Absolute, eternity is an instant
5. This Absolute Must Be the One Consciousness
… of Consciousness, Mind and the World
Indeterministic-deterministic dynamics imply that “no-thing” is always in “virtual” or potential change that becomes actual by selection. In the limit No-thing is identical to the Absolute; and to the intermediate phases of the world
THE TEXT
The text for this section is Philosophy of Mind and Consciousness
Note that this text does not follow the outline above and is significantly more comprehensive and detailed
Considerations on the Diffusion of Consciousness
It is convenient to start the circle with consideration of a simple but sufficiently complex creature. I have been living in Northwestern California for sixteen years - the home of the redwoods. It is also home to a yellow creature ariolomax columbianus, locally known as the banana slug1 that invades local gardens and amuses me as it crosses the deck in front of my home. This slug can grow up to eight inches and weigh a quarter of a pound; a common coloration is lemon yellow. I ask: is the banana slug conscious? This question has intrinsic interest but my motivation for asking it here is an analysis of consciousness. The more “data points” that one has, the more one knows about consciousness. Knowledge of consciousness starts by our experience of it and this leads to the commonsense definition of consciousness as the state of mind in which one has subjective experience of the world… since there is a qualitative or subjective feeling to such states, they have been labeled “qualia.” However, I will argue that a reconceptualization of consciousness is necessary to be able to understand the relations between consciousness and the world. Inquiring about the consciousness of a slug, since we have minimal empathetic insight into it, requires consideration of how to recognize consciousness and, in turn, reconsideration of what consciousness is. Consideration of machine consciousness is interesting for the same reasons. Of course the question about the slug may lead to insights in biology… and consideration of the issue for the machine may lead to insights in computation and artificial intelligence
Is a banana slug conscious? A key to answering this is the reconceptualization of consciousness… or perhaps it is in the conceptualization of consciousness. I emphasize conceptualization because the idea of consciousness as qualia is somewhere in the gray area between concept and percept. Consciousness as qualia is an anthropic notion. Let us then examine another idea that started as anthropic and subsequently generalized to a concept - the idea of force in physics. The idea of force in physics is one that is scientific and of universal applicability in the realm of physics - at least in classical physics. Force is an anthropic percept that can be generalized as a concept to the universe of matter by the dual aspects of measurement and theory. Measurement of force is by its effect[s] and the theoretical aspect is Newtonian Mechanics. This generalization does not invalidate the anthropic and qualitative notion of force but provides context for it. Similarly, measurement or observation of consciousness is through behavior 2… and the theory that provides integration and generalization is the dynamics of being. The dynamics of being is the theory that explains how an individual, often considered to be subject to or given in the real, can enter into the dynamics of the real… how a being enters reality as being without necessary mediation by “theory.” Since consciousness as qualia and the generalizations as orientation to the real would be involved in such a dynamics, the dynamics of being is a strong candidate. As a theory the dynamics relates behavior and entry into the real. It has predictive power in that it complements and bridges theory [science] and the categories of reality and intuition
It is ironic that behaviorism that had an intention to rule out mind from psychology, is a measure of consciousness and will show a slug - but not a thermostat - to be conscious
What is it about the behavior of a slug that makes it conscious? The conditions of its continued existence require it to negotiate in a complex environment. It has a perceptual system that is tied into its environment. This system evolved out of or with the environment. The creature is in the dynamics of the real. Although we do not sufficiently empathize with it to intuit its consciousness… we infer its consciousness from our mutual existence in the dynamics of the real
Question: But surely, a slug is not really conscious?
Answer: We tend to assume that our form of consciousness - stark3 and reflexive - must define consciousness. There is no necessity to the requirement of starkness. But all consciousness must involve consciousness of consciousness. This follows from consideration of what it must be like to have a single qualia in isolation. The having of qualia must involve memory and comparison. When my feet are cold as I write, I feel it; to know that I am cold I must hold the idea of coldness from memory in consciousness. Thus consciousness is necessarily reflexive. Our prejudice against the slug is due to equation of qualia with starkness. But there are also diffuse modes. And it is in these modes that the awareness of a “lower” creature is reflexive - involves conscious of consciousness. Thus consciousness of consciousness is intrinsic to consciousness… it is not necessary to say “consciousness of consciousness” for that is contained in consciousness… and there is no distinction between consciousness and awareness. Both consciousness and consciousness of consciousness or self-consciousness, though they have integral aspects, include the vague and diffuse - seen and not recognized… re-cognized by some other and or central agency of consciousness. It is in the same sense and with the same meaning that it can be said that consciousness necessarily includes knowledge of consciousness. The objections and arguments are the same including the generalization of the concept of knowledge. It is only in certain discrete, stark forms that this self-consciousness deserves to be mentioned. And it is only in these forms that there appears to be a distinction between consciousness and consciousness of consciousness
It will be interesting and useful to consider a gradation of species of various stages of organic development. This will permit correlation between nervous system and degree of consciousness. It will show that a nervous system is not necessary for consciousness… though, in animals, a nervous system significantly localizes and sharpens consciousness4. The gedanken application of the considerations discussed here to alien/machine consciousness will sharpen the analysis
Consciousness, Awareness and Attention
The three words have manifold meanings and consciousness and awareness are often used interchangeably. In the simplest sense consciousness is the having of subjective experience, of qualia… and does not necessarily involve self-consciousness or reflexivity. However, I argue[d] that consciousness necessarily involves reflexivity when all degrees of consciousness are included. This argument is not essential to the main argument in the “circle” of understanding. Awareness is sometimes considered to be similar to consciousness in that there is sentience but different in that the subjectivity is absent. The possible distinctions are subtle but I argue that there is no essential categorical difference. In this view there is no need for two fundamentally different concepts - consciousness with and awareness without subjectivity. There may be a need to distinguish the clear and central from the vague or the boundary… but, based on the various associations of the words a contrast between consciousness and awareness would not be the best way to do this
Attention is the assignment of differing degrees of clarity, centrality-boundary to elements in the conscious field. There, is in general, no well-defined boundary to the conscious field - it is dynamic and “fuzzy.”
More on conscious awareness
Assume that awareness includes but is not identical to conscious, i.e., that an organism may be aware but not conscious
I have already argued that “boundary” states are not non-conscious awareness. States of awareness on the boundary involve consciousness
Consider this point further. Consider bringing something in from the periphery of awareness into central consciousness. Someone says I was not conscious of it but I became conscious of it. Some argue that this means that there was awareness but not consciousness. Does not this imply a distinction between consciousness and awareness? No. It is my argument that there is no distinction in character. Insofar as peripheral awareness is not conscious it is not in the consciousness of a central system but it is in the consciousness - as re-conceptualized here - of a peripheral system
What then differentiates consciousness from the idea of awareness without consciousness? It must be the reflexive character of consciousness, of looping. Talking about consciousness… That the having of qualia necessarily involves these reflexive characteristics… That in the stark “advanced” case, the reflexivity involves explicit looping that may be seen as such; and that in the diffuse and elementary case the reflexivity is intrinsic in the fact of awareness/consciousness being in the character of a relation or binding
What then of non-consciousness awareness? Is there such a thing? Thermostats as thermostats do not qualify. The material components of the thermostat have relations: physical relations. I will be arguing that this is the singular and material case within the ontology that results from universalization of the concept of consciousness. The singular case may be regarded as “conscious” in the algebraic sense where zero is regarded as a quantity because of the algebraic simplicity that results. And from theoretical physics such algebraic conveniences may well turn out to have material significance. However _s among the components of the thermostat as thermostat are named rather than basically physical. As such there is no consciousness or awareness. This is not the final word on this particular issue and even if we allow a thermostat as thermostat to partake of the physical its consciousness, if any, is of the character of zero consciousness. What about the possible argument that just as living organisms are built out of elements of the environment and this is the source of their consciousness, so there is a parallel argument for mechanisms… I will ignore the ontologically laden character of the words and phrases such as “built”, “environment”, and “built out of”. Organisms are layered or hierarchical; each layer evolved in intimate relation with an environment; they are thus keyed in at all levels or their being; the environment is intimately and deeply interwoven; they are the expression of the world. Now we see thermostats, in this view, very cheap and degraded versions of expression. But on reflection the thermostat is not at all intrinsically tied in but is an expression of the tying in of the maker of the thermostat. I admit that this is not a knock out argument - these are not to be found in the world of the synthetic in a culture where we cultivate the glory of the analytic. But a synthetic being in a synthetic culture would leave alone the notion of a thermostat having consciousness, excepting the magical case, until the consciousness of the thermostat forced recognition
What of our friend the slug? What is the looping awareness when slugs meet? It is diffuse consciousness
So the difference between awareness that is not thought to be conscious and what is clearly conscious is not after all a lack of consciousness in the case of awareness. It is starkness, starkness of looping, degree of reflexivity, language, culture
There is no difference of kind among awareness and consciousness as reflexive awareness
But I already argued for essential but not stark reflexivity of all awareness-consciousness
There is no difference of kind among consciousness and awareness
There is a difference in degree which we may label consciousness vs. awareness but then consciousness loses its fundamental nature as qualia and awareness is fundamental
What about the unconscious? This is not a part of awareness but of potential awareness. Reconsider this
Criticisms of the Idea of Diffusion
… from the sense of separateness of the self
In psychoanalytic theory projection is a defense in which unwanted feelings are displaced onto another person. This is of course a very special case of knowledge by metaphor. Originally, at the start of individuation, distinction between a self and the world is not clear. In individuation the sense of one is replaced by a reflexive and many faceted looping from self to world to self… this idea does not require that self not be or not be seen as part of the world. A mistake that may arise in this process is “confusion” of elements or properties of self and world. This may be seen as projection
Thus in attributing consciousness to a slug or other creature, despite attempts at reconceptualization of consciousness and conceptualization of the position of a creature in the world, I may still be guilty of projection. Of course projection is not necessarily mere projection. Therefore the work of criticism is to show that such projection is mere projection
That this is the work of the critic - including the internal critic - does not relieve me of an obligation to show that such projection is not mere projection, that it has reality. At the same time I recognize that projection is also a source of knowledge… especially as part of dialog. So the real task is to embrace projection as part of the dialog of creation, criticism and experience. That is a phase of this work
This same analysis can be applied to all positions including materialism… which appears to be the opposite of projection. Materialism itself may be a projection… a power paradigm… but this neither validates nor invalidates materialism. Relative to this my program should include rather than reject materialism… and to find its place and appropriate interpretation within a larger scheme. That larger scheme may find its place through dialog and in history
Awareness and Consciousness: Summary
There is a meaning of consciousness that is identical to awareness… and another in which conscious is a kind of awareness. There is no awareness that is not consciousness in its general sense. What defines the special meaning of consciousness? Some considerations are given here: reflexive awareness, heightened awareness, awareness informed and cultivated by a sense of self, by social groups through language and culture… which are in turn nurtured through the sense of being that includes awareness…
Diffusion of Consciousness in the Individual
… some Explorations, Objections and Responses
In analogy between the components or organs of a compound organism, and simpler organisms… the components are themselves conscious
Objection: Individuals note no consciousness to their fingers or organs. Response: no consciousness is expected to be noted. There are levels of clarity or starkness to consciousness… and degrees of connection… and a second individual or one’s organs may be intrinsically “on” but “off” to the individual - to the “I” or the “me.” So “other” consciousness is on and off - in an approximate or metaphorical sense. The yogi can feel the consciousness of the organs and the saint can feel the consciousness of the other. I can look and feel, too, but the yogi and the saint see deeper… Other ways of seeing that these centers of consciousness are distant from the central, stark “I” are [i] in the seen but not recognized - which follows from the conditions of development of the individual and the association of the stark discrete forms with language and spatio-temporal perception… what the yogi and the saint see and recognize through training, initiation and empathy is also seen but not recognized by others - by the “uninitiated”… and [ii] in the unconscious or potentially conscious which too may be - or have an aspect of - the seen and not recognized
Objection: consciousness is either on or off. Response: consciousness is either present or not present. On off means there is a threshold below which there is awareness but not consciousness. If consciousness is present at all levels of intensity of awareness… then it is not on off but merely present or not present. The generalization of consciousness considered here includes awareness [by the behavior in organic context argument]. All cases can be considered under one category of consciousness with the limiting case assigned the value “zero.” Threshold is not negated; nor is this contradictory of the present arguments for in introduction of a reconceptualization there are going to be some points of difference between the old and the new versions of the concept… and, as argued above, the new system is to be judged by other criteria such as prediction and test… This is recognized in science but the ideas are not at all limited to science
Objections: but these arguments are not at all rigorous… are plausibility and heuristic arguments
Plausibility proof: introspection
Material proof: the reflex arc. Review and modify the argument for consciousness of simpler organisms
The issue of proof considered. The plausibility and heuristic considerations of the circle of issues has a number of functions: [i] plausibility and motivation, [ii] creation of a conceptual framework in which the issues can be seen in a new, generalized or universalized way… so that discussion may be held, explanations given, predictions made and tested, and ideas sharpened. The final criterion of proof in the world cannot be deduction alone but must also involve hypothesis [speculation] prediction and testing. There are, of course, other criteria of various types. Universalization, understanding, generalization, consistency and simplicity are all guiding “criteria”… consistency is also required. The discussion here and below shows the reconceptualization to have universalization, understanding, and generalization. It has simplicity in the following senses: the actual number of categories is reduced, the field of application is universalized, dualism is eliminated, and dynamics is introduced thereby to a degree eliminating description in favor of prediction. It points the way to development of the concepts, to application for utility and testing and rigor and consistency
An individual is conscious but a finger and viscera are also conscious. The violation of the “brain image” of the body is only apparent - consider the reflex arc and the vestiges of communication in organisms without nervous systems
The consciousness of the individual is discrete and central… and there is also a non-stark form of central consciousness. However, the consciousness of components is non-central or diffuse and non-stark
These considerations lead to the idea that an individual has multiple centers of consciousness. This is formalized in the following section
Issues… the binding problem… or is it a problem. Binding, attention and memory… not everything in the conscious field needs to be bound… the universe is not a single object [for many purposes]; and an individual needs to have different modes of control: a scanning control that is part of the central, discrete mode… and a mode that is on “idle” [sleep] but arousable in relation to a different category of data that suddenly requires attention
Individual consciousness that appears to be one is, in fact, many… or distributed
Therefore the world has in it a distribution of consciousnesses or awarenesses
We would next like to show that the diffusion of consciousness is a unity: the Many Consciousnesses in the World Constitute a Single Consciousness. This is taken up next
How can we show that the distribution is one?
First, they are one in the same way but to different degree that the many of the individual though in fact many are effectively one. Just as the distribution in the individual partake of the individual but are only occasionally in communication or in unity… similarly the agents of consciousness the individuals of the universe are also often in qualitative isolation but may also on occasion and in phases partake of the unity - of the one. Second, through the mutation of being[s] over the history of the universe… This is the integration over being and process which is the absolute that is nothing. Nothing? The combination of indeterminism [required by the process of creation] and determinism [the stable phase of indeterminism required or implied by being in the world that is not mere virtual being] show that the universe and the absolute have a phase of and are equivalent to non-being
We now see the unity of consciousness. This leaves our concept of the world inorganic even if dynamic in that consciousness and the world have not been shown to be integral. The question of the identity of consciousness and the world is taken up next
Idealism: Unification of the Concepts of the Idea and the Object
At this stage of the present exploration there are still the notions of the one consciousness - mind/idea… and the object of consciousness: “matter?”
How shall we introduce organicity into this conceptual state of affairs? The answer is as follows: the concept of consciousness has been reviewed and revised. The same must be done for the concept of the idea itself
It is usual to think, in the standard material paradigm of the modern world, of consciousness as consciousness of an object. The content of consciousness is the idea. On this view, the world has matter and ideas. This is not necessarily a dualism for the idea may be a manifestation or reduction of matter without having been explained or even being explainable in material terms
However if everything is a form or manifestation of idea - if ideas are real and the original substance - then we have a clear and simple monism. This is the form of idealism. It is simpler than materialism in that since, by our existence, we have ideas and thus idealism does not require any further substance or hypothesis with ontological content… and even if the having of ideas is said to be delusion or illusion then what are delusions or illusions if not ideas? It is an error to think that idealism is in opposition or in contrast to materialism. It materialism is symbolized by the mountain, then idealism is symbolized by the mountain, the wind, the clouds and mist that surround the peak… and the valleys below… and the ground of the mountain: the earth. Idealism requires no hypothesis. It need not be a philosophy or a metaphysics or an ontology. It is or can be seen as the name for experience; or one really wants it to be something more than the intrinsic state of our existence then we could call idealism the acknowledgement of our existence
Idealism: Objections and Responses: a somewhat lengthy catalog
Some basic objections to idealism
The challenge to the paradigm of practicality and power… It is tempting to call this the material and or the prevailing paradigm of politics and commerce of everyday life of the Western World… but the material paradigm is much more than a scientific paradigm based in, say, physics and is of much broader prevalence than the “West.” It is the paradigm of power, politics, survival, the ego and the given. Scientific or philosophical materialism is a special case of this paradigm
2. The notion of the Idea as Ethereal and non-material
… and
3. The Challenge of Materialism
The existence of matter and the need to satisfy the requirements of practical or everyday materialism… and scientific and philosophical materialism6
Responses to the objections 1 - 3. 1. Universalization, reality and simplicity, 2. There are grades of idea… from vision, to feeling to hardness to thing-object-matter. The idea or notion of object as not-idea is incomplete. “Objects” have very much an ideal existence… that is fundamental, existential and experiential. Their existence also as material objects requires an additional hypothesis or position beyond that of the reality of experience: that of the external world. The external world is thought - whether practically and in effect or analytically and in fact - to be necessitated by the equation of idealism and solipsism. The equation of solipsism and idealism follows from the isolation of consciousness as discrete, monadic and isolated entities. Solipsism is in contradiction to the existence of a real world with distinct individuals and distinct ideas. However, a world of distributed and unitized - by occasional rather than continual communication - consciousness, idealism does not imply or equate to solipsism. The ideal world is one of individuals that are also a unity. 3. Idealism is thus consistent with “the existence of matter and the need to satisfy the requirements of practical or everyday materialism… and scientific and philosophical materialism”… but is also simpler and requires fewer hypotheses. The absence of awareness is the material case
… there are too many posited categories that are and should be grades or shades in the continuum of a single category. This means that the world is actually simpler… but in no way loses its variety of forms and phenomena, in no way reduces the variety and richness of [human] experience… and further, to be explained below, eliminates or gives meaning to alienation - connects humankind and world. This latter result is similar to the action principle of the Gita. Alienation is the result of the stark aspect of reflexivity. A positive aspect is freedom and agency in transformation of self, culture and world
… the sources of the posited categories, in addition but also in some relation to the power principle, are the disciplinary or specialization of modern institutions and academics… and egoism
… what categories? Mind/matter, egoism/altruism, real/nominal, rational/empirical, hidden/visible, inner/outer or external world, subject/object, ultimate/proximate, pragmatism-utilitarianism/objectivism, consciousness-subjective/behavioral-psychological… Regarding the latter it is true that we recognize the mental in others through empathy and by behavior: action, expression and affect… but why are we asserting that a smile is “just behavior” and not mind? So mind is recognized by mind and this generalizes to the formal and the conceptual, the recognition of mental process or their absence in alien mind, in computers
Reformulation of some of the objections: But, common sense, science and philosophy teach that there’s an objective world out there… outside of consciousness
Response: the objection refers to the stark, discrete, central form of consciousness. There is also the less defined, the felt, and the hard where the idea of distinction between subject and object breaks down - where subject and object are in fusion… where the world is in the essential nature of consciousness to the point that the statement is not necessary, and reveals doubts of being and alienation fostered by analysis and power - which, good or bad, is the case. What has been called consciousness is the discrete, vivid very self-conscious form cultivated in a culture in isolation from the conditions of its existence. What the objection labels “the world out there” is the diffuse, dim… the outpost of the stark. The external world is also an “idea” or concept that needs, in the process of reconceptualization, be relabeled “hypothesis” rather than “fact” or “established.” the external world is the range of forms called matter, nature, society, and universe. We have discovered the world “it is us.” the label “external world” is the label for the outpost and the boundary of consciousness that is also imbued by the material paradigm with the character of the central and the stark element of consciousness
Further reformulation of objection 1. In the twentieth century the reign of science overtly by its overwhelming success and covertly by its power and dazzling of the collective conscious, the democracy of numbers, and the subjection of all institutions including that of learning to economic criteria resulted in a minimization of philosophy. Philosophy, in the eyes of many, assumes a lesser, auxiliary role. We contemplate the end of philosophy
Response: the situation described in the objection is a symptom of capitulation in the face of the forces listed; it is a collective loss of faith in reality fostered by alienation, by the same forces, from the world and the real being of humankind. At the same time as the forces described operate there is also a certain disenchantment with the professionalization of the disciplines and the practical arts… a disenchantment based in realism over method and also in the aging of a certain energy and internal contradictions of the socialization of what was once magic
The dazzle of the science and technology of the twentieth century, in the context of this response, is like the fascination with the “siddhis” in the practice of yoga. The siddhis are supernatural powers experienced on the way to yoga. As such they are “dangerous” in that they detract from the final goal of union with the real which may be translated into knowledge of the real in the present context
Note that to say that science as practiced by a Newton or a Heisenberg is magic is not a criticism of the subject matter or the uses but points to the singular aspects of the disciplines and the main actors. The institution of science substitutes instances of success for the real, ideas for being, method for action, and social progress for natural evolution
Exploration of being - see Being and the Absolute - goes beyond the limitations apparently imposed by the dominant paradigms of second half of the twentieth century
Further objections, criticisms and debate:
But idealism, even with reconceptualization, universalization and gradation of the idea says nothing - it is almost tautological - the concept of the idea is merely redefined to include matter. Materialism at least shows something - that, for example, ideas are manifestations or aspects of matter
Response: Materialism - scientific or other- does not show that ideas “reduce” to matter although that demonstration may be part of a materialist program. I have discussed the issues of idealism and materialism at length elsewhere. The simplest refutation of strict materialism is that it does not and cannot explain experience. The form of idealism considered here is not an exclusive idealism; it does not exclude matter; it does not claim that matter is an illusion or a fiction; it does not require or force a choice. It asserts that matter is a form of idea
Idealism is most definitely saying something. One thing it is saying is that a materialist system - based, for example, in physics and biology - will not and cannot explain experience i.e., it will not explain the subjective aspect of awareness and consciousness. The system of idealism that I am considering shows why such materialist explanations cannot be given but it may also show that the explanatory gap, though it is infinite in one sense, is transparent and easily bridged in another. As more and more is known about matter - physics and biology - more and more mental phenomena will be explained and understood and consciousness - the fact but not the subjectivity of it - may well be explained. That will be impressive and scientifically significant with further implications and consequences in general and for physics and biology in particular… but the materialist mode of description will not and need not explain the subjective side of consciousness7: the explanation will be in an “as if” mode
The gap between the “as if” and the subjective modes of awareness or consciousness - sometimes called the third and first person modes - may be paper thin. I expect, however, that this will require reworking and broadening of the concept of consciousness and the idea so that in the subjective limit the concepts will reduce to the normal stark and very present form of consciousness that we know well… and in the objective limit the concepts will reduce to matter
In this view, then, the scientific explanation of consciousness itself - the subjective part… “the hard problem” may well be a non-problem - an artifact of our cultural paradigms and institutions
Thus idealism is not without content
The idea is not redefined - rather it is re-conceptualized
Materialist explanation does indeed have power but this is neither a refutation of idealism nor a proof of materialism
Idealism does not refute the existence of material being. There should not be any need or desire to do this from an idealist perspective. Idealism gives meaning to matter
Idealism conflates subject and object but also gives special meaning to the object
Materialism denies the subject as a category but may seek to explain it as an aspect of matter
There is a framework within which, practically, there is no reason to choose between idealism and materialism because in a specific practical sense there are no consequences to that choice. Even though idealism is simpler, more inclusive and more direct it is only when broader frameworks are considered that the choice is significant
5. Consciousness as Biological
The obsolete dualistic Cartesian categories of mind and matter should be discarded and consciousness should be recognized as a material or biological phenomenon
Response: At issue here are [1] the more basic divide between subject and object, between internal and external. These practical dualisms are the foundation of the metaphysical Cartesian dualism. Treating consciousness as a biological phenomenon elevates the practical divide to a metaphysics or ontology. The present idealism bridges the divide and implies no change for the use and utility of material explanation which goes through in the “as if” mode. [2] In the immediate realm the introduction of idealism as described here introduces conceptual consistency but no practical advantage, [3] In the global or long term the idealism provides the consistency described above, maintains the practicality of biological and material explanation in their known domains of validity, shows a way to completed understanding and integration of the disparate and incomplete of our modern cosmologies
6. An Idealist Metaphysics cannot be established
Response: It should not be in the nature of idealism to be scientific or provable empirically. The claims of idealism are not empirical - not verified by looking at the world. Rather the claims are about the place of “looking.” Idealism is therefore not to be proven inductively. Nor is the assertion of idealism - that the character of the world is that of the idea - analytic
Idealism is not a fact in a universe of facts
Idealism addresses the nature of the world. It is about the whole of being and the distinctions within being. It addresses a distinction of convenience: world and being, the object and the idea
The idea behind idealism is the integral nature of world and experience
It is a statement regarding the whole of being and therefore neither empirical nor rational
A statement or view regarding the whole of being is not empirical in the sense of being known through experience nor would one expect to prove an assertion of this type for proof is relative - to primitives and so on. Rather, such an assertion would be one of integration, recognition, economy
It is a-hypothetical. It is the nature of the world that follows from making no assertion
When that is spoken it is idealism
However, idealism is not without content. We walk in the world and live in it without projection without assertion and therefore without distortion. It is the final economy. Materialism, pragmatism… say something about the world… And, valuable though this may from various points of view to say something is to distort. The silence of idealism is positive. It is the ultimate mental discipline… to leave the world as it is
But in a world where there are many voices it is necessary for that which needs no voice to be spoken
Idealism is not without content as noted, also, in the foregoing discussion. Further its intrinsic content is the self-recognition of being. It is very close to being saying “I Am” and saying no more. It provides context, clarity, simplicity but not reduction. To what will we reduce the whole of being?
A minor objection relates to the issue of simplicity. The content of the objection appears to be about the unfamiliarity of the content. However, it is simple in relation to the degree of assumption or hypothesis being made, the number of categories required or even categoriality itself, the closeness to experience and the synthesis of the content of experience with the content of the material mode of description. Although idealism is made to stand in opposition to materialism and sometimes to empiricism it is not so
7. The Separateness of Experience
My experiences are mine and are separate from the experiences of others
A related distinction: death and birth are absolute
Response: the response will be aphoristic… and by pointing to exception
The atomic elements are elemental and transmutation is impossible
The world does not disappear at night
Sight is sight and sound is sound. This is violated by synesthesia
Shared delusions
Twins
Husband/wife
Poetry
Music
The social taboo against bonding
The cult of individuality
An experiment… Connect or graft the eyes of one organism to that of another of the same species
A question: In enculturation, culture conditions what is perceived. A perception is made. Whose perception is it?
8. But consciousness is localized
This objection has been addressed in the discussions above. I revisit it because I want to point to an old analogy
Response: We notice the air [usually] only in its perturbations - the breeze, our breath… but not in its pervasion of the atmosphere
It is certain forms of consciousness that are localized
This analogy to the form of matter… Matter is localized in particles. But particles are not points. And the fields of interaction among “particles” also partake of the form of matter. Some of the confusion in modern quantum mechanics - though certainly not all - is due to applying old distinctions and models
9. The Reconceptualization of Consciousness
… is Another Name for Matter Could it be that in “re-conceptualizing consciousness” I am merely renaming matter?
Response: Perhaps the motivation for this objection is the trap of the old terminology and viewpoints
In the re-conceptualization the realm of consciousness expanded. Perhaps awareness or some other perception-relation word would be better with consciousness, as discussed above, as a special case
Note that relation is another word that refers to something grounded but is made tepid by projection of alienation-detachment and anti-grounding onto the world by the politics of power and symbols
Matter remains a special case. It is materialism, not matter, that is rejected… and not because it is “inferior” but because it is more hypothetical and is contained by idealism
The Issue of Materialism in the Form of Atomism
If I say “everything, each particle, is awareness” that immediately raises the question “What is a particle?” This is considered in the essay Being and the Absolute
A motive to idealism is in the following dual: 1. The inadequacies of materialism in explaining experience, and 2. Revision of the concept of the idea. One may argue, however, that materialism will grow to include experience - in primal form and that the revision of the concept of the idea is too far from the natural meaning of the idea. It may be replied that the generic concept of materialism excludes experience and that the revision of the concept of the idea is faithful to its grounding in experience, in the mental and is also sufficiently broad to provide foundation for a metaphysics. And so, the debate, the dialog, the conversation may continue
An alternative that cuts through the dialog, permits founding in the given categories, is non-dogmatic, allows for discovery, includes the fullness and mystery of being and the imperatives of materialism is a suitably interpreted neutral monism. One approach to this is the theory of being of the third circle
Exploration as Ongoing Discovery of the Variety and Extent of the World
The world is one… but exploration is compound8, involving the world itself - the real, ideas or the ideal, and words as symbols - of significance and convenience - for ideas and, in a community, for communication. This includes definition, specification, delineation or mapping of variety. Among other things ideas - and concepts - correspond to patterns, unities whether transitory or otherwise
Exploration is a process with relations and interactions among real, idea, word. Ideas, including ideas of nature, change rapidly relative to the slower changes of the natural realm. This is a partial [and provisional] characterization of the natural realm. In contrast, in the socio-cultural realm, ideas and objects may change at comparable rates and have dynamic interactions
This, too, involves conceptualization: world divided into real/idea… as constituted of something like an ideal-conceptual/perceptual-mental realm, a social or socio-cultural realm - the community of individuals and a natural realm… that words refer directly to ideas and indirectly to elements of the world. I can come back and review and modify. However, I am using the distinctions for convenience rather than as categories
I particularly do not want to imply any categorical distinction between real and idea. An aspect of idealism and the dynamics of the real is that of a strong interaction - if not identity - between real and idea
The present application of these considerations is to consciousness though the origins as far as my own thought is concerned are in reflection and, of course, the tradition. The example of consciousness forces us into a larger or whole realm - structured, of course - and the analysis then, it turns out, has implications for the foregoing conceptualizations
Exploration and Science
Introduction: This is a broad topic and I have written on it many times. It would keep coming up in many ways. “Science” is used in many ways and to many purposes… some so far from any ideal or unitary meaning that it becomes clear that it is an umbrella term without, in its manifold use, any specific designation. I should first specify what I mean by science. This is many faceted and could be approached in many ways: the idea, the disciplines, the culture, the myth - science as it is perceived outside the culture, the institution, the ideal and the operational. The idea could be very simple: knowledge that through repeated criticism and test has become established in our culture as secure… and so on. I want to emphasize, however, that the other ways to look at and understand science are significant. These various ways or modes are not, in essence, in opposition but are complementary. Within the modes there may be opposition such as verification vs. selectionism or science as an independent institution vs. science as a transactional institution. The institution of science includes the ways in which science is built into the fabric of society. I may say that science is multifaceted, and transactional rather than unitary and concrete… and despite this it has a unitary character. But my purpose here is to avoid repetition of the issue of exploration and science over and over. So I ask what is it about the idea of science that I find limited? It is the idea of knowledge that, though it interacts with action, is separate from human action. As such there are two criticisms. The first is the lack of real action and therefore the lack of groundedness. But at the same time there is another criticism that is the over caution of science that detracts from its contact with the real… These criticisms also apply to the idea of knowledge that is separate from action. For the separation from action leads to empty action if not apathy of action
The issue of respecting science arises. Science is important in the world today as a primary approach to knowledge and as a fundamental source of basic and applied knowledge, provides significant understanding of our world and universe; science is a world-wide institution and as such is very well funded and has numerous practitioners. In some senses there are too many practitioners… the sheer numbers, while a source of a wide variety of information, also result in a dilution of the significance and standards. My position is this: I believe that use and practice of the ideas and principles of science is true respect; that respect of science is consistent with work in which the tenets of science such as materialism, the atomic hypothesis to name two are suspended and alternatives explored as long as this is stated and the two modes are not confused; that proper questioning is as agreement and sometimes more so. The idea of authority has various meanings but, given limited or bounded rationality “rigid acceptance without question” is not one of them; and for the same reason arbitrary and ad hoc rejection of received ideas is not true openness
Knowledge and science may be contrasted with belief. There is an underlying assumption of a separation from the world in which we can have a science, a knowledge of it. However, there is not an infinity of time in which to leisurely seek objective, secure and timeless knowledge. Practically there are separations between knowledge and action. The idea of knowledge as separate from the loop of action is without final foundation. It is the projection of a phase of culture. What is that knowledge that is the part of [human] thought while engaged in action, in the world? Do I have to wait till knowledge is completed before action? Yet this is part of an implicit model of knowledge and science, cultivated in part due to its power in many places and academies. It includes a denial. It is though the hearth of action without final knowledge is a fake. That is not the case. Action is the essence of being. That temporal form of knowledge called belief is not mere belief… it lies halfway between the ideal of final knowledge and the faith of devotion… it is rejected by both extremes in their escapes from the world… but it real - it is our engagement with the world straddling the polarized quests for certainty -- and therefore may be called the ethical action principle of belief
Exploration and Science: Exploration is the fundamental action of being in search of Being… i.e. in search of the whole in the areas of extent in process, modes, and monads. The modes include the elements of the “chain of being” but also subject-object and interior-exterior. Thus for exploration and being: embedding in the real is also freedom. This follows, as discussed in the present circle of essays, from the nature of genesis. Exploration sees being as an integral question and answer… but question and answer that are not separated and are part of being in its depths rather than merely symbolic. Exploration includes science and the idea of ideas separate from action. Again, by the nature of genesis and growth of the world groundedness requires real action and separation. The world contains separation and distinction and variety: these are the richness of the world. Exploration seeks to experience the whole in itself, the richness in itself and the relations among and between these. Exploration is contact with the real
On Common Experience
The question arises as to the relations between esoteric/academic disciplines such as the fields of science, academic philosophy, revealed religion… and common experience
What do I mean by common experience? Is it not related to the esoterica… are the esoterica not extensions of common experience. Is it what remains if the esoteric disciplines are lost? Is it related to our evolutionary situation… these are some considerations
What is not accessible to common experience is not basic truth
On Words and Meanings 9
I think of a word and have numerous associations… other words, ideas, things, relationships… I enter the realm of meaning
Some points of view argue that meaning is determined by use10. Here I argue that this is a valid idea but that “use” is not a simple concept… and that this valid idea is nested in a larger view that is a dialog between “use” and understanding placed in a context of the world and its processes. A reason is that the world is in a process - in a number and variety of processes. If, in the beginning, there was nothing then at which point is “use” determined? When were words coined? What was the occasion and intention at the coinage? Did the originator - I do not mean to imply that origination was a discrete occasion or the work of a singular individual - have an intent? Can an individual experience the meaning of words? There is a dialog between use based in the world and meaning seated in the mind without either actually dominating the other
Ideas and words have an ordinary, day-to-day, practical realm [within the real, or otherwise] and so have an ordinary, day-to-day, practical meaning. Of course, the idea of an ordinary, day-to-day, practical realm is not definite… for it varies among individuals, communities, cultures and societies and over time… even the significance of the ordinary vary and change… and these changes are clearly “nonlinear” in that there are interactions among the elements and factors of change and so changes of meaning may be sudden, discontinuous and even show inversion at times
If we think of words and concepts as relations to the real then, as adaptations, they have no immediate need to be precise or exact and nor is there an immediate meaning for precision or exactness to be derived from adaptation. Exactness is revealed as a projection from the stark aspects of experience rather than as a universal experience or desiderata. From this, perhaps initial, perspective the relations need only to be “sufficiently” good. In cases of