(Realization of a 3-Step Consciousness)
→→→ Tripartite Collection 1 ←←←
| EP 1 EP 1b |
EP 2 | EP 3 | EP 4 | EP 5 | EP 6 |
| EP 7 | EP 8 | EP 9 | EP 10 | EP 11 | EP 12 EP 12b |
Detectives of the Mind as of Nov. 22, 2024
Consciousness is a topic with varying approaches to both describing and understanding. If we use a broad approach we may say that all of existence is conscious. If we prefer a more narrower approach, we might exclude all non-animate forms from our equation, including the supposed non-animate entity called God by some, Allah by others and still others have roughly parallel representative labels in their respective languages.
Further selectivity might introduce the notion that we prefer to deal with the idea of consciousness strictly in human terms, and forego ideas dealing with suppositions suggesting that bacteria, viruses and plants have some type of consciousness, though we of the present age are unable to appropriately measure or identify. By so doing we then encounter approaches which may be specific such as describing consciousness as a wakeful state as opposed to a state of full unconsciousness (such as a presumed state of being a coma) or semi-consciousness (such as when asleep), though it is thought that dreams can be used to alert a person of a danger or the need to be aroused to deal with a physiological condition such as having to urinate, or eat, or check to see if windows and doors are secured... as well as if one's guard dog is on duty or fast asleep with their favorite pacifier toy which they wrestle you for. Clearly because we can be aroused from slumber suggests we are in a semi-conscious state of existence... irrespective of the labels and attributes assigned such as REM (Rapid Eye Movement) sleep (all of which involve a mind/body differential) or that we can recognize the existence of a potentiality of consciousness, but never consider that what we are describing as consciousness is a possible transitional state/stage of a developmental trend that is similar to development with respect to having a 3-part valuation, as previously discussed.
Indeed, that which we call dreaming may be an exercised expression of a developmental stage of cognitive development by a primitive brain, and yet this primitive brain also concocts a system of rationalization about the need for sleep. It's widespread occurrence is used a proof that it MUST BE important and therefore it is safe to accept it and define in in terms allocated to a type of study called a science whose practitioners of this type of thinking allow themselves to think liberally of other ideas which they add to their books of witchcraft psychology fostering a system of dichotomization.
Other approaches to define and label the phenomena of consciousness may lead some to cite brain wave activity, of which we humans have come to assign different brain waves to different brain activities occurring in different parts of the brain. Nonetheless, consciousness is said to originate in the brain or at least because of it. Specifically, it is considered that without the brain there is no consciousness. Yet, we may even allow ourselves to consider that consciousness has levels of expression and that because it arises due to brain activity, the development of the brain over millions of years inclines us to consider that consciousness may well develop in accord with the developmental state of the brain as it occurs in a given hominid if not other life forms. The notion of types and levels of consciousness may or may not be suitable for some readers assumptions, much less their conclusions, but I'll use the view anyway since it is easily understood in terms of proposed gradations occurring over time. And I will even allow the metaphysical idea that consciousness has a relative existence with life forms which do not have an observable brain or even the rudiments of a brain to arrive later in a life-form's evolutionary trek.
As such, let me propose that as humanity has developed from more primitive variations as well as in terms of racial and gender distinctiveness, where different grades of consciousness have and do exist; despite the idea some might suppose I am venturing too close to older notions of racial, gender, and even economic inferior/superior prejudices. However, this is not the intention at all. If you don't like the idea of consciousness being subjected to what you think is an area of discrimination which automatically dismisses the information as having any validity; to me that seems to be a personal problem on your behalf. For other readers, just give the distinction the benefit of any doubt and go along with the terminology being used here even if it is marred by older notions that have been found to be irrelevant from the perspectives of multiple others in their respective disciplines.
Similarly, ask any self-respecting Black person and they will tell you that their soul is different than any other race's. But you have to have soul in order to understand this formula of referencing. Hence, while referencing a different type of soul between Blacks and others, it is not to difficult to encapsulate the notion of there being different kinds/types of consciousness as well. Otherwise we can't say one person has "heart" and another person doesn't, or one person understands and another person doesn't. Clearly there are flavorings race and gender which constitute at the very least the possibility that different kinds/types of consciousness exist... perhaps with as many definitions as well. Hence, the idea that consciousness can be describe qualitatively needs to reference quantitative variation as a type/kind of quality as well. Indeed, Quality can be quantitative just as Quantitative can be qualitative. Thus, someone with a particular qualitative consciousness can appreciate a valuation of quantitative qualifications occurring over vast eras of time.
With respect to the soul and a tripartite organization along with idea that the consciousness may represent a transitional multiplicity of body- mind- consciousness, let us take a brief reference about soul multiplicity:
Multiple souls: (a) widely distributed notion, especially in central and northern Asia and Indonesia, that an individual's life and personality are made up of a complex set of psychic interrelations. In some traditions the various souls are identified with the separate organs of the body; in others they are related to character traits. Each of the different souls making up a single individual has a different destiny after death. Among many northern Asian peoples, for example:
- One soul remains with the corpse.
- One soul descends to the underworld.
- One soul ascends to the heavens.
The most famous example of multiple souls is the belief of the Apapocuva Guaraní of Brazil that a gentle vegetable soul comes, fully formed, from the dwelling place of the gods and joins with the infant at the moment of birth. To this is joined, shortly after birth, a vigorous animal soul. The type of animal decisively influences the recipient's personality: a gentle person has received a butterfly's soul; a cruel and violent man, the soul of a jaguar. Upon death, the vegetable soul enters paradise, and the animal soul becomes a fierce ghost that plagues the tribe. ("multiple souls." Encyclopædia Britannica, 2013.)
Interestingly, we don't see a tripartite variation consisting of a mineral-vegetable-animal, or vegetable-fish-animal, or fish-bird-man, etc... Even though in the ancient Greek tradition we find the notion of an animal-vegetable-mineral taxonomy. The absence of categories also provides us into an insight of human cognition just as does Word Order. But let us not overlook the idea of a ghostly presence, which is a common theme among many people at different times in their lives. It is not know whether this "presence" is a figment of one's imagination or if the imagination is the most viable channel by a fledgling developmental characteristic is making its existence known, though not necessarily intentional. It may simply be an exercise of growth that in most people become absorbed into other directed expressions whether defined as a creative "muse", watchful ancestor, spirit (good or bad), or simply labeled as "something there"... a hint, a nuance, a caricature of thought to be elaborated on in the pages of a story or poem or art work or music, or dance, or some other activity. While not trying to offer an excuse for my inability to provide a definitively targeted explanation, sometimes a descriptive metaphysics may be all one has in their quiver at the moment.
Like the idea that our consciousness may follow a triune path, let us also speak in terms of the soul doing the same thing, unless the soul is the 1st order of consciousness humanity experiences. Are the ideas of ghosts, spirits, witches, sprites, demons, etc., labels used to describe an awareness of the 1st level of consciousness humanity comes to perceive? Interestingly, though one may conceive of a soul in terms of being labeled a ghost, malevolent spirit, etc., that is unwanted, some humans have contrived the idea of soul loss:
Soul Loss: departure of the soul from the body and its failure to return. In many preliterate cultures soul loss is believed to be a primary cause of illness and death.
In some cultures individuals are believed to have one soul that may wander inadvertently when its owner's guard is relaxed, as when asleep, sneezing, or yawning. Other cultures believe that each person has two or more souls, usually including a "wandering" soul that experiences one's dreams and a "life" soul that maintains one's corporeal vitality. The most dangerous instances of soul loss involve malevolent witchcraft and the enticement and capture of a soul in order to cause harm to its owner.
Those who believe in soul loss hold that an owner can prevent the soul from wandering by means of ritual utterances, such as saying "God bless" when one sneezes, or by a variety of supernatural means, such as the wearing of charms or ingesting of magical substances. However, in cases where the soul's owner believes he or she has been bewitched, soul retrieval requires complex techniques and the services of a religious specialist. The essence of most cures is the catching of the lost soul by a shaman and its reintroduction into the patient's body. ("soul loss." Encyclopædia Britannica, 2013.)
If we look at references to the soul, we see that it matches conceptualizations being made about consciousness and that in both cases it generally is tied to the body and the body to the mind, in some perspectives. For the present discussion involving a recognition of the use of dichotomies as it applies to Psychology and varying contents of conceptualization, a look at an excerpt is warranted so that at the very least the reader will not think I am making th e content up. And while the idea of consciousness is tied to philosophy and psychology which can claim some ownership of the term, the concept of the soul is frequently attached to divinity and thus a type of ownership is claimed. If we say that the word "soul" is a crude reference to the 1st stage of consciousness, and the word consciousness to the 2nd stage, what are we to label the 3rd stage? Yet, pehaps the soul is not the first but a gradation just as our notion of consciousness may be an expressed gradation of a developmental characteristic just stepping out of the womb of our mind's, so to speak. While we may think of the soul and consciousness as definitive terms of being actual separate entities, perhaps they are not. They soul may have nothing whatsoever to do with religion. Just because millions of people think it does... does not make it true.
Soul: in religion and philosophy, the immaterial aspect or essence of a human being, that which confers individuality and humanity, often considered to be synonymous with the mind or the self. In theology, the soul is further defined as that part of the individual which partakes of divinity and often is considered to survive the death of the body.
Many cultures have recognized some incorporeal principle of human life or existence corresponding to the soul, and many have attributed souls to all living things. There is evidence even among prehistoric peoples of a belief in an aspect distinct from the body and residing in it. Despite widespread and longstanding belief in the existence of a soul, however, different religions and philosophers have developed a variety of theories as to its nature, its relationship to the body, and its origin and mortality.
Among ancient peoples, both the Egyptians and the Chinese conceived of a dual soul. The Egyptian ka (breath) survived death but remained near the body, while the spiritual ba proceeded to the region of the dead. The Chinese distinguished between a lower, sensitive soul, which disappears with death, and a rational principle, the hun, which survives the grave and is the object of ancestor worship.
The early Hebrews apparently had a concept of the soul but did not separate it from the body, although later Jewish writers developed the idea of the soul further. Biblical references to the soul are related to the concept of breath and establish no distinction between the ethereal soul and the corporeal body. Christian concepts of a body-soul dichotomy originated with the ancient Greeks and were introduced into Christian theology at an early date by St. Gregory of Nyssa and by St. Augustine.
Ancient Greek concepts of the soul varied considerably according to the particular era and philosophical school. The Epicureans considered the soul to be made up of atoms like the rest of the body. For the Platonists, the soul was an immaterial and incorporeal substance, akin to the gods yet part of the world of change and becoming. Aristotle's conception of the soul was obscure, though he did state that it was a form inseparable from the body.
In Christian theology St. Augustine spoke of the soul as a "rider" on the body, making clear the split between the material and the immaterial, with the soul representing the "true" person. However, although body and soul were separate, it was not possible to conceive of a soul without its body. In the Middle Ages, St. Thomas Aquinas returned to the Greek philosophers' concept of the soul as a motivating principle of the body, independent but requiring the substance of the body to make an individual.
From the Middle Ages onward, the existence and nature of the soul and its relationship to the body continued to be disputed in Western philosophy. To René Descartes, man was a union of the body and the soul, each a distinct substance acting on the other; the soul was equivalent to the mind. To Benedict de Spinoza, body and soul formed two aspects of a single reality. Immanuel Kant concluded that the soul was not demonstrable through reason, although the mind inevitably must reach the conclusion that the soul exists because such a conclusion was necessary for the development of ethics and religion. To William James at the beginning of the 20th century, the soul as such did not exist at all but was merely a collection of psychic phenomena.
Just as there have been different concepts of the relation of the soul to the body, there have been numerous ideas about when the soul comes into existence and when and if it dies. Ancient Greek beliefs were varied and evolved over time. Pythagoras held that the soul was of divine origin and existed before and after death. Plato and Socrates also accepted the immortality of the soul, while Aristotle considered only part of the soul, the noûs, or intellect, to have that quality. Epicurus believed that both body and soul ended at death. The early Christian philosophers adopted the Greek concept of the soul's immortality and thought of the soul as being created by God and infused into the body at conception.
In Hinduism the atman ("breath," or "soul") is the universal, eternal self, of which each individual soul (jiva or jiva-atman) partakes. The jiva-atman is also eternal but is imprisoned in an earthly body at birth. At death the jiva-atman passes into a new existence determined by karma, or the cumulative consequences of actions. The cycle of death and rebirth (samsara) is eternal according to some Hindus, but others say it persists only until the soul has attained karmic perfection, thus merging with the Absolute (brahman). Buddhism negates the concept not only of the individual self but of the atman as well, asserting that any sense of having an individual eternal soul or of partaking in a persistent universal self is illusory.
The Muslim concept, like the Christian, holds that the soul comes into existence at the same time as the body; thereafter, it has a life of its own, its union with the body being a temporary condition. ("soul." Encyclopædia Britannica, 2013.)
The concept of the soul like that of consciousness has not been referenced in terms of biological development. Instead, references usually reveal descriptions border on the esoteric or metaphysical. However, it may be better suited for us to think of them in terms of long term biological development where both the soul and consciousness because of their typical associations with dichotomies, are relegated to primitive interpretations by an institution of psychology practicing an antiquated philosophy. Then again the topic of Consciousness is looked away from because of its association to Psychology just as the topic of the Soul is looked away from because of its association to Theology.
Whereas there are multiple instances where a tripartite theme of organization is used to differentiate different levels, many of which are overlapping, and even though there is an identifiable biological precedence, this idea has not been applied to consciousness in any systematic way with supportive referencing. As it stands, our philosophies of consciousness are extremely primitive and primarily reflect metaphysical assumptions. Attaching them to ideas labeled as sacred does not provide proof of existence nor superior quality of assurance. Attaching ideas to views labeled as sacred most assuredly references them as make-believe... as a continuance of antiquated thinking by antiquated mind-sets which very often are aligned with using dichotomies by those unfamiliar with the idea of trichotomization.
Whereas it is alright if some minority is claimed to be privileged with the potential of having a superior consciousness, it is not alright for someone to say that the wealthy, or white race, or male gender is home to such a quality. Oh no, let us insure that our proposed scientific explanations exhibit some political correctness. Whereas some writers would rather avoid the discussed usage of such labels for fear of being misunderstood and run out of their profession on a burning rail-car, I would rather those types of readers to be offended and go elsewhere to practice their own variety of reversed prejudice and discrimination against those whose use of terms, even when defined, are felt to be inferior to their preferences of vocabulary, and let me add, their own limitations of consideration in their ideas.
Nonetheless, depending on how one decides to define consciousness, their valuations may exhibit a lineage of variation, even if they don't explicitly point it out or illustrate such with an itemized graph. For example, if we say that all consciousness is merely a state of wakefulness, then we also be saying that all primates have the same type of consciousness as humans, even if we then make a list of primates and a list of hominids having occurred over Evolutionary history. However, if we say that consciousness defined as wakefulness is one thing and that consciousness tied to knowledge and experience are another type of valuation, we are left with reconsidering our initial definition of consciousness.
Definitions of consciousness may also incline one to think in terms of memory, that you need to be able to remember something in order for you to be conscious. Hence, consciousness may be tide to memory because it is the pathway/process by which consciousness has developed into its currencies of expressions in present day humans. Likewise, physiological processes have been noted to invoke memories suggesting a link between consciousness and memorization, and yet the consciousness of a person is mute and must use alternative ideational representations in order to express itself. Here is an excerpt from the Britannica about memory, physiology, and consciousness:
...Because one's experiences cannot be observed directly by another (as one cannot feel another's headache), efforts to study these levels of awareness objectively are based on inference; i.e., at most, the investigator can say only that another individual behaves as if he were unconscious or as if he were conscious.
Efforts to interpret the origin and significance of unconscious activities lean heavily on psychoanalytic theory, developed by Freud and his followers. For example, the origin of many neurotic symptoms is held to depend on conflicts that have been removed from consciousness through a process called repression. As knowledge of psycho-physiological function grows, many psychoanalytic ideas are seen to be related to activities of the central nervous system. That the physiological foundation of memory may rest in chemical changes occurring within brain cells has been inferred from clinical observations that: (1) direct stimulation of the surface of the brain (the cortex) while the patient is conscious on the operating table during surgery has the effect of bringing long-forgotten (unconscious) experiences back to awareness; (2) removal of specific parts of the brain seems to abolish the retention of specific experiences in memory; (3) the general probability of bringing unconscious or preconscious data to awareness is enhanced by direct electrical stimulation of a portion of the brain structure called the reticular formation, or the reticular activating system. Also, according to what is called brain blood-shift theory, the transition from unconscious to conscious activities is mediated by localized changes in the blood supply to different parts of the brain. These biopsychological explorations have shed new light on the validity of psychoanalytic ideas about the unconscious. ("unconscious." Encyclopædia Britannica, 2013.)
Unfortunately, many psychoanalytic ideas tend to lean towards the use of dichotomization without a single reference denoting a realization of Trichotomization. This is extremely problematic to have and use both a teaching and clinical philosophy of duality and not even be aware of the topic of Trichotomy, despite its presence in human anatomy, that many people in psychology make a point of studying. One of these dichotomies is called introvert/extrovert, though in term of a discussion about consciousness, we find only the word "introspection" and not a counterpart which we might label as "extrospection", thus implying an example where the human mind stays at the count of "one" and does not proceed to a count of "two", as if the human mind can only grasp one entity in this particular context... like a person having two cows whereby they can grasp a concept of two, but have only one type of gem in hand and do not have one that is comparable, whereby there is no need to develop a concept of two, though from an outside perspective we can see the differences of though patterning. In any case, here is an excerpt about introspection:
...In the late 20th century, the validity and reliability of introspection were subject to much experimental study. In an influential review of the literature on "self-attribution," the American psychologists Richard Nisbett and Timothy Wilson discussed a wide range of experiments that showed that people are often demonstrably mistaken about their own psychological processes. For example, in problem-solving tasks, people are often sensitive to crucial clues of which they are quite unaware, and they often provide patently confabulated accounts of the problem-solving methods they actually employ. Nisbett and Wilson speculated that in many cases introspection may not involve privileged access to one's own mental states but rather the imposition upon oneself of popular theories about what mental states a person in one's situation is likely to have. This possibility should be considered seriously when evaluating many of the traditional claims about the alleged incorrigibility of people's access to their own minds.
In any event, it is important to note that not all mental phenomena are conscious. Indeed, the existence of unconscious mental states has been recognized in the West since the time of the ancient Greeks. Obvious examples include the beliefs, long-range plans, and desires that a person is not consciously thinking about at a particular time, as well as things that have "slipped one's mind," though they must in some way still be there, since one can be reminded of them. Plato thought that the kinds of a priori reasoning typically used in mathematics and geometry involve the "recollection" (anamnesis) of temporarily forgotten thoughts from a previous life. Modern followers of Sigmund Freud (1856–1939) have argued that a great many ordinary parapraxes (or "Freudian slips") are the result of deeply repressed unconscious thoughts and desires. And, as noted above, many experiments reveal myriad ways in which people are unaware of, and sometimes demonstrably mistaken about, the character of their mental processes, which are therefore unconscious at least at the time they occur.
Partly out of frustration with introspectionism, psychologists during the first half of the 20th century tended to ignore consciousness entirely and instead study only "objective behaviour". In the last decades of the century, psychologists began to turn their attention once again to consciousness and introspection, but their methods differed radically from those of early introspectionists, in ways that can be understood against the background of other issues.
One might wonder what makes an unconscious mental process "mental" at all. If a person does not have immediate knowledge of it, why is it not merely part of the purely physical machinery of the brain? Why bring in mentality at all? Accessibility to consciousness, however, is not the only criterion for determining whether a given state or process is mental. One alternative criterion is that mental states and processes enter into the rationality of the systems of which they are a part. ("mind, philosophy of." Encyclopædia Britannica, 2013.)
While the foregoing article continues into a discussion of rationality, it expresses the opinion that there are four kinds, but I can recognize as a 3 -to- 1 ratio. Please note the use of dichotomies:
- Deduction, is the sort of rationality that is the central concern of traditional logic. It involves deductively valid arguments, or arguments in which, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true.
- Induction, consists essentially of statistical reasoning, in which the truth of the premises makes the conclusion likely to be true, even though it could still be false.
- Abduction, another sort of nondeductive rationality that is indispensable to at least much of the higher intelligence displayed by human beings is reasoning to a conclusion that essentially contains terms not included in the premises.
- Practical reason, All the forms of rationality so far considered involve proceeding from one belief to another. But sometimes people proceed from belief to action. Here desire as well as belief is relevant, since successful rational action is action that satisfies one's desires.
If you believe in some religious account of humans being master to all other creatures, then your bias will not permit you to consider that anything less then your definition of humanity has any parallel, and all of comparative anatomy is a bunch of lies. If you're going to believe in one nonsense, you might as well catalogue all the rest and call the collection a sacred text.
My interpretation of present day Psychology, Mathematics, and other duality oriented instructions is like sitting in a lecture hall (or auditorium/classroom) listening to an instructor speaking about their profession and course-work in terms of dichotomization, even if they never mention that they are immersed in the topic without being conscious of it as a particular cognitive pattern and never once hear them mention anything closely resembling trichotomization; is like having taken some time machine back to some 18th century University and listening to topics which are of interest to those of that era, whereby mastery of such provides a student with a University degree with which they are likewise enabled to espouse the same sort of information to the next generation of students. And even though some may be theological students espousing a Trinitarian doctrine, they are wholly ignorant of Trichotomization as a cognitive exercise of evolutionary development.
When speaking of rationality using a dichotomy, we might devise the following items for review, though they are not typically recognized by established paycho-dynamic considerations:
- A modern mind with a modern consciousness.
- A modern mind with an ancient consciousness.
- An ancient mind with a modern consciousness.
- An ancient mind with an ancient consciousness.
Since we are dealing with physiology and the mind is attached to it in a proportional way and we think that consciousness is attached to it in a proportional way, a mal-or under-nourished body may well create the occasion for the development of an older mind which may inturn exhibit an older consciousness. At least this rationale seems plausible. However, if not, then we may be dealing with occasions of difference where one can have a present day mind in an old or run down (antiquated-like) body (such as by way of injury, mutation, disease...), and a consciousness that is more instep with some future scenario. Mix and match as you will. Would this not account for those who think they lived in a former time and those who seem out of step with the current orientations of humanity either because they are better suited for some past life or that they are more in tune with that which will come in the future? A person's type and manner of mistakes, however common they may or may not be, might well reflect their sensitively adaptive ability for multiple time-period related environments. Differences in mind, body and consciousness would offer another type of explanation for personally experienced phenomena that do not customarily make there way into popular self-help literature or the secret journal/chart entries of psychologists, counselors, clergy, or intuitive detectives who provide themselves with the latitude of divergent thinking.
Whereas we have a term like "old soul" to reference observations made by some about another who appears to act and think like a person much older than their youthful appearance, and in fact the person may prefer the company of older people not as surrogate parents or sibilings, but as a sort of equal or someone who will understand their interpretations and attitude and knowledge exceeding their youthfulness. And even though the term "Old Soul" has a relative commonality, there is not relative commonality of it being associated with a succession of alternatives which together reveal a tripartite formula of Ancient Soul, Old Soul, Young soul. It is as if the "old soul" reference is a central point of perception exhibiting yet another tell-tale sign of a dichotomous mental orientation just as the Buddhist term of "Middle way" does, even when its users may claim it is a 3rd, central alternative to two extremes. They do not realize they are using a linear scale of a graded system of dichotomy... where the "middle way" is like saying 1.5 between 1 and 2, because their mental state currency is like a primitive having not developed the conceptualization of an actual 3rd valuation, but strving to do so with elaborations (embellishments) of "twoness".
Like the deposition of geological stratifications over time, so too does consciousness reveal an order metaphorically synonymous with the sequential lineage of igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary representations, though these can become mixed over time, like an ancient animal dragging an ancient human carcass into a cave to munch on, but playing havoc with the attempted analysis conducted by future scientists. However, the geological stratification analogy has a cognitive component illustrated in the human use of materials adapted for tools. And though other materials such as sticks and sea shells as well as animal bones may well have been used, so too were different types of stones. However, we humans have come to classify the use of stone tools in terms of sophistication, as indicated by this excerpt from the Britannica:
...The Stone Age is usually divided into three separate periods: Paleolithic Period, Mesolithic Period, and Neolithic Period— based on the degree of sophistication in the fashioning and use of tools. ("Stone Age." Encyclopædia Britannica, 2013.)
And yet, even when the idea of a developing sophistication is applied to stone tools, it is lacking from most contexts in which consciousness is discussed. What is it about the idea of consciousness that people tend to think of in terms of some singularly solidified simplified entity like some stone statue that once it appears in public view, it remains the same and yet is at times confused with the notion of conscientiousness? The idea that one's conscience, conscientiousness and consciousness are separate but overlapping capacities of the human brain is not a common consideration. Instead, we humans become mules taught at education systems to carry whatever burdensome knowledge and history we are saddled with. And because we are so used to the weight of the baggage used in succession from one grade level to the next, we want to defend it as right, good, and appropriate for everyone! Yes, the lashing of this or that tongue is good for you. It will fashion you in the traditions of being a beast of burden for carrying conventional goods of superstition and relevance to a controlling leadership so that you will do their intellectual bidding. Yes, you must think like everyone else or be ostracized like Lazarus and be cast out into some cave awaiting the day for some would-be proverbial Saviour of your soul and sanity. And yet, society has kept from you that you are the savior for many. You will lead them into a promise land called the 3rd Consciousness.
The 3rd Consciousness like the 3 Germ layers produces a different state of being from those life forms which are due to two germ layers. Those creatures born into a two-germ layer reality are ignorant of a three-germ layer reality. Even the transitional formulas of development from one to two to three germ layers has not received the analogical comparison it may well deserve with respect to Consciousness, unless the word Consciousness is poorly understood and is not an actual attributive index. Nonetheless, it provides an incentive for re-examining developmental cognition which may exhibit a similar model of 1-2-3 overlapping scenario of development.
One model of stratification after another has been presented to you yet you failed to make the psychic connection with the formative idea called the consciousness. Why is this? And why do still refuse to accept the reality even when your nose is rubbed in it? You are so used to carrying the ideological traditions of established Institutions as a guide book, you fear venturing into uncharted intellectual territories because you have also been taught to interpret such behavior as indulging in the exploration of "terror-tories". You are afraid to go beyond the formatively trained two-step ideological train of thought which society has choreographed. You are a scaredy-cat. You are a chicken. You are the very pusillanimous character you had tried avoiding to become while in grade school and later grades. But you need to look in the mirror and tell yourself you have failed. You have been afraid to look too deeply in the mirror for fear that you would fall through some looking glass and be lost to an recognized sensibility of that which you have taught to describe as normalcy. And yet, at the periphery of your personalized visions of secretive explorations into alternative ideas, you have always recognized the existence of Alice extending a hand to lead you to a secret garden. Her entireties are beckoning you even now... so what will you do when she gets close enough to whisper... they are coming for you. Yes, the infamous "they". Unless you allow your intellectual architecture to unravel the old scaffolding and build a different design, you may well be lost inside when the foundation begins to crumble.
Earlier peoples did not conceive of ideas such as geologic stratification, Evolution, atomic theory, plate tectonics, germ theory, the calculus, dinosaurs, etc., and yet in some cases there was enough available information at their fingertips to produce the rudiments of some present day ideas which... let us be fair in our assessment, they did develop; all the while considering themselves to be enlightened and rationale living in an advanced civilization. Indeed, many of the ideas we hold as truth today would be scoffed at if we had a time machine and could communicate them to those in the past. And in some instances forward thinking ideas offered by those in the past to their contemporaries were thought wrong or even evil by the accepted standards of the day, though we of the present accept them with open arms. I would dare anyone to go in the past and try to explain radio, television, or computers to those in the past who are not even aware of how to read, write, or much less play card and board games that children of today take for granted. Hence, while it may be very courageous or stupidly careless to propose a "crazy" idea, I actually have nothing to lose while writing this from my isolated silo in the desert in preparation for the alien attack! (Just kidding. But I do keep jars of sea water around for protection against the Triffids. HA!)
Is the consciousness of an infant the same as that of an adult, and does an aged person having returned to an infantile state of dependency thus also returned to a state of infantile consciousness? It is clear that for a sake of discussion in a broad landscape of philosophical discussion, we can initially describe consciousness as being as varied as the person and primate animal that they are. Hence, different people in all their demographic listings, (gender, age, era, socio-economic status, education, experience, etc.,) can be said to exhibit a different different variation of wakefulness, that we alternatively name as Consciousness. It is not prejudice or discriminatory to attempt to use some model of calculus for an attempted dissection of what we are crudely and fudgingly calling Consciousness.
Can we say that Einstein and other creative thinkers have a different type of consciousness, and that if this type could be transplanted into another individual they might well have creative thoughts in accord with their interests, education and experiences, as well as gender, race and their other demographics? Do creative people have a type... a kind of consciousness and we can artificially create and superimpose on another's mind or replace their type/kind of consciousness? And yet, are we discussing that which might cause mental problems in those whose mind's are not prepared to think creatively? What does a person do if they start seeing numbers and symbols appearing in the mental vision and yet they do not have the mathematical background to arrange them in any order to make sense of a situation that they do not normally occasion the use of mathematics for? What good is a creative idea in the mind of a person that is ill-prepared to make use of information which may come in the form of a kaleidoscopic array in episodic moments of time distortion and periodic out-of-body transitions between two or more mindscapes of seemingly surreal wistfulness? And what do we make of those who understand or at least get the gist of what I am saying and yet refuse to consider the proposed definitions of consciousness being rendered in different literatures, particularly those of religion and Eastern philosophy are akin to a bunch of kindergarten nonsense-jargon encountered on the playground?If we use Demographics as the criteria by which we are assigning the notion of consciousness, then to say that we shouldn't do so, is a tell-tale sign that we may be limiting ourselves in an exploration of consciousness. Being off-handedly dismissive of words or ideas you may find vulgar, does not permit a re-evaluation of the words being used in contexts where no one else has tried to offer a substitute for. Granted that vulgar words in general typically are used by ignorant people, and that the use of a vulgarity meant as a disparagement... even by an intelligent person is generally viewed in a poor light, let us not be so hasty in all contexts. The usage of demographics is useful, that's why so very many researchers use them for making general assessments for school, employment, migration patterns, purchasing behavior, military service requirements, etc...
While the reader may think I am confusing data from one type of analysis and super-imposing it on the idea of consciousness to produce what they think is an irrelevance because they are fully committed to a given type of definition for consciousness, I am suggesting that we need to re-evaluate what we may think about consciousness by applying views from other considerations, which is what very many researchers do in an effort to find novel ways of looking at old problems and perhaps discover that which has merit for further consideration. This is the currency of investigative research being carried out. Multiple disciplines looking at multiple others in a comparative approach to achieve some possible new insight by stepping outside the parameters of insulation and isolation that disciplines tend to generate by a given type of vocabulary and associated patterning of ideas in their separate contexts. Some people do this so routinely that it is part of their daily routine in thinking alternatively, be it a rocket scientist, magician, musician, dance choreographer, artist, military strategist, etc...
Despite having the word "animal" in our vocabulary, it is not what we use when approaching the study of animals and placing them into a Binomial Nomenclature, much less in a system of Psychology with its present preference for dualities. However, I think, based on the recurring expressions of "3" in developmental biology, that consciousness associated with an evolving organ called the brain, is better suited for using a Trinomial system of referencing. It is just that we of the present are so far removed in the past from what will prevail in the minds of future researchers, we fail to permit ourselves to think more creatively than we have. We are in a stage where the word "consciousness" is used as a definitive reference when I think it much like the term "animal" or water, or atomic particle, or ladder, or computer, etc... There are indeed variations and gradations which can be identified using different criteria. Nonetheless, however crudely my description may be viewed in future generations, I want to say that consciousness develops along a 1-2-3 gradient, which may well involve overlaps, spontaneous changes, punctuated changes, intermittent changes, mutations, digressions, etc., which are already recognized as possibilities elsewhere occurring in biology.
Using the idea of Demographics to describe an idea of Consciousness is not that difficult to grasp. However, such a tool appears to be more inline with the term personality than an expressed way of elucidating the development of consciousness with respect to the Evolutionary history of biology. Whereas we can denote distinct step-like gradations of complexity (not necessarily defined by increased quantities) over the history of biology which I have previously outlined as exhibiting a pattern-of-three with a recurrence suggesting an analogy (if not an equivalence) to value notation which groups sets of three as demarcations of developmental transitioning, the use of Demographics to outline differences in consciousness do not present us with an easily discernible distinctiveness of collectivity representing the tripartite stages which I assume to exist based on the recurrence of sets-of-three taking place in multiple areas of biological development.
Indeed, even though we have an example of someone thinking about the brain developing in a tripartite fashion such as McClean's Triune brain theory, and the multiple three-part theories we can find attributed to behavior such as Freud's Id- Ego- Super ego, as well as the insanity- sanity- super-sanity tripartition to name but three; no one to my knowledge has advanced a tripartite hypothesis of consciousness related to developmental biology without resorting to some metaphysical supposition. Whereas the tripartite idea of Unconsciousness - Semi-consciousness - Consciousness are easily understood, not so is the case when I present the notion of three levels as biologically distinctions, because the public engages in the use of their own models of demographic alignments.
For example, some think that women are in general more conscious than men, and some men think the same of themselves. Others feel they are more conscious and thus enlightened because of their religious/philosophical belief. Still others that they are more conscious because they are more aware of physiology, and in particular how the brain works... or doesn't work. That's right, if you look at the human brain and compare what it can with what it can't do, you will clearly have to note that there is an extreme conservation of ability. Such a conservation, frequently seen as an expressed pattern-of-three may well be a tell-tale indication that both the development of consciousness as well as imagination and overall thinking ability have both a conservation of ability as well as a shelf-life. However, we can take steps to avoid a complete extinction by removing ourselves from the planet's impositions, it's umbilical cord... and venturing into space beyond the galaxy where a new form of evolution can take place because we have programmed the transport vessel with the means of establishing, permeating, and altering the environment for a greater viability and potentiality than humanity presently has.
The recurrence of patterns-of-three in biological development, like the recurrence of the Triplet code in DNA, is an expressed model of an imposed limitation created by the type of environment to which biological processes have been subjected to, and will be forced to adapt to changing in accordance with the changes coming about by the incremental deteriorations of the Sun- Earth- Moon Triplex.
While a use of the Demographic view is one way in which we might interpret the design of consciousness, others might think that the size of the brain may be an indication of consciousness as well. In fact, since the size of the brain has changed over vast periods of time it may stand to reason that that aligned consciousness has also changed. And even though all of them may be able to see an apple and realize it is food, how the communicate (or conceal) it from others and how it may be visualized when apart from a direct line of sight, may be vastly different. A consciousness in a crude or elementary state/stage of development is likely to be different from one that is in a state/stage of development that is less crude... else-wise called advanced state/stage. While proving the idea may be difficult, the overall idea of a difference is not. The following illustration is a depiction of assumed brain sized development corresponding to skull sizes, occurring over time:
Whereas it is generally thought that brain size might well indicate the differences between primitive and complex thinkers described in terms of cognitive activity, we are cautioned not to attribute a direct correlation between brain size and cognitive ability:
...One must be extremely cautious about ascribing greater cognitive capabilities, however. Relative to estimated body mass, H. habilis is actually "brainier" than H. rudolfensis and H. ergaster. A similar interpretive challenge is presented by Neanderthals versus modern humans. Neanderthals had larger brains than earlier Homo species, indeed rivaling those of modern humans. Relative to body mass, however, Neanderthals are less brainy than anatomically modern humans. Relative brain size of Homo did not change from 1.8 to 0.6 mya. After about 600 kya it increased until about 35,000 years ago, when it began to decrease. Worldwide, average body size also decreased in Homo sapiens from 35,000 years ago until very recently, when economically advanced peoples began to grow larger while less-privileged peoples did not.
Overall, there were periods of stagnation and elaboration in stone tool technology during the Paleolithic, but, because of variations over time and between locations as well as the possibility that plant materials were used instead of stone, it is impossible to link brain size with technological complexity and fully human cognitive capabilities. Moreover, in many instances it is impossible to identify assuredly the hominin species that commanded a Paleolithic industry, even when there are associated skeletal remains at the site.
The unreliability of brain size to predict cognitive competence and ability to survive in challenging environments is underscored by the discovery of a distinctive human sample, dubbed Homo floresiensis, in a limestone cave on Flores Island, Indonesia, in 2004. The diminutive H. floresiensis had brains comparable in mass to those of chimpanzees and small australopiths, yet they produced a stone tool industry comparable to that of Early Pleistocene hominins and survived among giant rats, dwarf elephants, and Komodo dragons from at least 38 kya to about 18 kya. If they are indeed a distinct species, they constitute yet another archaic human (in addition to H. neanderthalensis and perhaps H. erectus) that lived contemporaneously with modern humans during the Late Pleistocene.... ("human evolution." Encyclopædia Britannica, 2013.)
If cognitive activity does or doesn't go hand-in-hand with consciousness, then we are presented with the option of consciousness being an emergent property whose presence and development coexist with cognitive ability but need not necessarily be dependent on it. A sort of parallel evolution of that which we might describe as a "voice" or echo, or aura, or magnetic field, etc., that has, is, and perhaps will become more than some reflecting/refracting/scattering (multi-directional echo) chamber of a shadowy figure we can't quite get a good grasp of, like some dancing flame on a cave wall that we of the present are describing in terms of unrecognized superstitions but labeling it "consciousness". However, aside from these artistic suppositions, let us again consider the notion that consciousness is an emergent property which symbiotically attaches itself to a human brain and may cause some to think they are hearing a voice or voices and viewed by others as a mental health issue, because the voices are creating disruptions of sleep, work, eating, socialization, or influencing them to do harmful acts. The mental development and maturity of a person may well experience a developing consciousness that exceeds their peers, may occasion the production of problematic situations. It's not that they can't grow out of the issues, it just may take awhile.
By looking at a short representation of development human evolution over time and say that each of them had a consciousness, do we also think that each of them had the same type or kind of consciousness in terms of awareness? Indeed, because humans view different humans in different ways, are we addressing an issue related to consciousness or mere interpretation of what is consciously perceived?
If each person alive today has a different consciousness from one another, then agreements based on shared behaviors and beliefs are generalities which may later create problems as individuals experience developmental changes in consciousness. The once practiced generalities will not be enough to create or maintain social bonds. Problems being described in terms of property, economics, gender, military prowess, etc., may well be expressed incremental differences in consciousness development. If we sat that the foregoing list of human-like creatures all had the same type of consciousness, their personal interests and habits would exhibit differences in cognitive attributions and how they are applied. By today's standards of what it means to be human, even docile acting examples of any of the above creatures would not be characterized as having neither the same knowledge, logic ability, or means of communication. And we might well say that they have a different kind of consciousness, without realizing that our definition of conscious varies according to context and that being compared. Our biases, our discrimination, our self-serving human attitude might be exhibited more clearly to those who are measuring its presence. If we are only comparing present day humans, our inclination to describe what we mean by consciousness might well be dramatically different when asked to describe human consciousness compared to some earlier member of the hominid line.
Does one think that all the foregoing figures would have the same or similar model of consciousness we would call human, or do we then consider that perhaps consciousness, like the brain and overall physiology are subject to evolutionary changes as well? Then again, is that which we call consciousness just another organ on the path of becoming another vestigial presence like the appendix, yet we don't know how to remove it or judge when it becomes problematically inflamed, ruptured, diseased, or otherwise? Do present humans have the same type of consciousness that ancient Egyptians had, or was there a small difference in brain function/structure which caused them to not have a modern model of consciousness based on the currency of ideological orientations?
For example, if we say that those with a proclivity to assess and orient themselves in the world is based on the adopted rationality of perceiving dualities, are they thus describing a given state of consciousness that is unbeknownst to them harboring an ability to evolve but such a potentiality is suppressed due to the environment of their professions and the espoused philosophy of tool usage and interacting with others? The idea of a developmental gradient to one's consciousness is so far removed from commonplace discourse in an outside psychology environments, that to speak of such might be cause to question your sanity if you were not able to qualify your remarks with explanatory commentary, much less the ability to convincingly articulate it as a philosophical point of view.
The idea that consciousness is fluidic in terms of being part of a recurring 3-part developmental biological history, suggests we are dealing with a characteristic of humanity that is not only not well understood, but the development of human consciousness... as related to cognitive ability, suggests the current inability to think more appropriately and definitively about it is much like how early humans reacted to seeing what turned out later to be Dinosaur bones, geological stratifications, tree ring dating, and multiple other perceptions that went unrecognized for what they actually were, because of what may be described as a general ignorance, a general naïveté', despite all the presumed intelligence, wisdom and knowledge people believe themselves to have in their respective eras and settings.
Page Initiated: Tuesday, 7th January, 2025... 12:03 PMInitial Posting: Saturday, 11th January, 2025... 6:30 AM