Philosophical Journal of a Schizophrenic

PHILOSOPHICAL JOURNAL OF A SCHIZOPHRENIC

 A Book of Philosophy

Paul Fearne

[This book was written between my honours year and my masters in Philosophy at Melbourne University, while I was unmedicated. It is the groundwork for my further book, In Relation. This book has previously been published as Journal Philosophique]

The conscious mind is the seed.  The unconscious mind provides the material out of which forms the crystal of creative production.  The crystal acts as a prism through which we perceive reality.

Each microcosm contains a macrocosm.  And each macrocosm is a constitutive of a microcosm.  Each atom of my body is comprised of a solar system, and the body as a whole is the universe.  The solar system we inhabit is itself an atom which is apart of a universe which on a macro-scale may possibly be an object or a living organism of some sort.

The universe is contained in my body, the solar system being an atom within my body.  Each tree, rock, bird, flower also contains the universe as the universe contains them.  To think in such a fashion is to relinquish ones normal conception of space.

We are just an extension of natures finger.

All is change.  There are no distinct objects as such.  No self.

The history of philosophy is simply a footnote to the Philosophical Investigations.

Language shapes perceptual frameworks we use to perceive the world.  An object only becomes an object for us once we have conceptualised it and perhaps given it some use or function.  The child sees the world much differently to the adult, for the child has not conceptualised the world in an ‘aspect shift’.  This seeing of different aspects was detailed by Wittgenstein in the Philosophical Investigations.   It is the seeing a duck or a rabbit in the duck-rabbit example.  The child sees the duck, which is the non-conceptualised world, and the adult sees the rabbit, which is the conceptualises world, only we can’t change which aspect we see as in the duck-rabbit example.  Once the world has been conceptualised then it necessarily remains conceptualised for us.

Wittgenstein had the insight that the meaning of a word stemmed from its use in the language.  This insight should be extended to objects.  An object is such for us through the use it has in our lives.  This is what gives an object its meaning.

An individual is not an autonomous entity, but is rather reified (A termed used to mean ‘brought into being’) by contextual considerations such as environment and social influences.  The individual, Derrida would say, defers presence to the surrounding milieu.  A direct consequence of this reasoning is the self is displaced as an illusory construct.  Contemporary literary theory, which views the text as a construct, the creation of which is the product of structural considerations such as history, socio and political systems; is indeed close to this insight.  It is just a matter of extrapolating from the text to the individual.  As a ‘parole’ is only situated within a ‘langue’, as a word is only given meaning in the context of a language, so the individual is only reified in the context of history, society and environment.  This explains the phenomenon of loneliness.  A person can suffer from acute loneliness as the people that form the influencing group are not present, so the self begins to feel its non-presence, or non-existence.  This also helps explain the effects of isolation in extreme cases.  The self begins to disintegrate once the reifying environmental factors are withdrawn.  Some people need continual exposure to nature.  Here the natural is providing the reifying influences which give the self its apparent existence.  Wittgenstein recognises the importance of such contextual considerations and the Philosophical Investigations are a testament to this insight.  It is context, the environmental, natural, social, political, which forms the grounds upon which the self comes into quasi existence; (or apparent existence).  To understand the self, yes you must study psychology, but perhaps more importantly is the study of anthropology, sociology and politics.  The advantage of philosophy is that it can be a forum for these wide influences.  Look not for the self in the individual, but rather in the context.  By context here I mean social, political, environmental and historical factors.  And even here you will not find an abiding self, but a chimera, a snake in the grass, which is gone before it can be captured.

This is why people find deep satisfaction in looking at paintings, listening to music, reading books, for it literally defines who they are.  Because the self can only be realised in juxtaposition to its surroundings, it needs such things to define itself against.  When you hear a piece of music, you are reified, enlivened literally.  Because you are only real in relation to your surroundings, then listening to music establishes your sense of self.  This is very true, you only have to observe the various influences which spring up around different types of music.  The music, both metaphorically a literally defines them.

This is why it is difficult when a loved one dies.  A person who is close virtually defines who we are, or, in relation to them we are reified.  At their loss, a part of ourselves is lost.  This sounds like a cliched platitude, but it is true.  We get a sense of ourselves through our relationships with others, and the closer the person, the greater the stake they have in defining who we are.

Just as a word defers its presence along a chain of signifiers, so to the subject defers its subjectivity through the transcendental ground to the objective.  And accordingly, the objective defers its objectivity through the transcendental to the subjective.  The subjective reifies the objective and objective reifies the subjective.

Perhaps it is best to say the subjective defines its ontological essence to the objective and vice versa.  Hence essence is a chimera, forever quested after, never found.

When aesthetes attempt to extinguish the self they remove themselves form an environment which will reify the self.  All sensual contact is restricted, so the self, which needs such contact to be reified, is gradually extinguished.  The self needs external objects to be reified.  This explains consumerism and the strength of self in western society.

There is a suchness exhibited in everything in the world.  A ‘flavour’ that pervades the entire world.  It is perceived in each of the senses.  There is a taste suchness, a smell suchness, a sight suchness etc.

Mind is the transcendental condition of experience.

When we sleep, the self disengages as the reification with the objective world ceases to operate.  The self turns of as it were.

Like the self, the present is only reified through its relation to the past and the future.  In itself it has no existence, it is ethereal, a chimera, only appearing to have existence.  That which seems most real is actually chimerical.  This is one of the marks of existence, it can be seen in everything, form the self, to time, to objectivity, to language.  The Buddha articulated this insight as the mark of ‘no-self’.  This no-self has itself the mark of suchness, the flavour of the world.  A good title for a book – The Reification of the World.

The structure we find in the world, the mind projects.  The mind reifies an essentially inessential reality.

Life is movement, for once you stop, once motion ceases, you disappear, for there is only movement.  Movement engenders the differentiation required for reality to be reified.  There must be movement from A to C for B to exist.  There is no B separate form A and C.  This has implications for causality.

The mind reifies the world.  This is bedrock, the end of justification, the given.

We can only see forward in space, and backward through time.  There is a symmetry here,  perhaps memory is the sees of an evolutionary development of a sixth sense.  An organ which perceives time.

Memory is the evolutionary seed for a sense organ that perceives time in the same way the eye perceives space.

Kant says that we can not know the things in themselves.  That’s because there are no things in themselves, there are only appearances.

What seems like arrogance is sometimes simply an excess of talent.

‘Forms of life’ as activity.  This is an insight into life as motion.  Life is movement.

When you live in the present time travels faster, for you come closer to the non-existent reality of time, where there is no progression from one time to the next, where different times happen simultaneously.  This is due to the fact that the past and future cease to reify the present as having existence.

How is the symmetry apparent in the world related to the lack of inherent existence.  You never can have only one of something in isolation form other things.  For an object to be reified, made real, there must be a contrast between two or more things.  Love does not exist without hate, time without space, good without evil.  For love is only reified, made real, in relation to its opposite.  Of course between two bi-polarities there is a spectrum of influences, but each instance is only itself reified in relation to its immediate counter parts.  Love, in a Derridean sense, defers its presence to hate, and vice versa.  It is a self perpetuating system.  This symmetry permeates the entire universe.  We see it expressed in biology, in the construction of the human body, tow eyes, hands, feet etc.  But it is not necessarily simply a bipolar symmetry it may be a tri-symetry or a quad symmetry in more complex systems.  We see the symmetry emotionally in love/hate, elation/depression, joy/sorrow.  We also see it ontologically in the subject/object distinction.  The subjective reifies the objective and the objective reifies the subjective in the same way that love reifies hate and vice versa.  In whichever aspect of the world you study, wether it be biology, chemistry, linguistics, art, philosophy, you can see apparent in that subject all of the hallmarks of existence displayed. Studying language is as revealing about the nature of the universe as is studying physics.  The entirety of the universe is reflected in each of its parts.  And what we see in studying these parts is a lack of existence and a symmetry.

Schizophrenia occurs when an antimony develops within the symmetry and as a result the reifying of the self breaks down, and reality becomes disturbed.

Wittgenstein was right to think in the Tractatus that the structure of language mirrored the structure of the world.

A crises occurs in the post modern condition when it realises that there is nothing worth watching on television for the evening.

Every aspect, every component of reality mirrors every other aspect in its entirety.  The part mirrors the whole.  This is why you can know just as much about the nature of the universe from studying linguistic as studying physics.  The structure of language mirrors the structure of the world as Wittgenstein said in the Tractatus.  An example here is of Derrida’s insight into a words deferring its meaning along a chain of signifiers.  In a similar fashion, the self defers its presence through a chain of reifiers.  Objects constitute a context through which the self is reified.  This is a relational phenomenon.  The self only reifies in relation to the object world.  This accounts for the prevalence of consumerism in the west.  The self, which in itself has no inherent existence need to be reified through its relation to objects.  So if purchasing consumer goods, the individual is making the self real, reifying it.

Metaphor and simile are able to work because of this mirroring effect.  The part sees an aspect of the whole in the object and can subsequently draw comparisons between that object and other objects.  For in a literal way, the stars do exist in the young woman's eyes, or at least are mirrored there.  Some comparisons obviously work better than others give the close-ness of the homogeneity of the objects being compared.

The cells in the body can only copy themselves a finite number of times because in order to exist there must be differentiation between themselves and other cells who are temporarily more matured.  A cell that copies an identical cell does not engender the differentiation that is required for that cell to reify, and hence continue in existence.  Hence we are mortal only in that we can live.  On a different meta-level you can say that in order for life to be reified, it must be related to death.  On a biological level we can see the process played out in the reproduction of cells.  This is why a hot shower is only enjoyable for a short time.  There must be differentiation between temperatures for enjoyment to continue, for enjoyment to be reified.

The Two Part Prelude of Wordsworth is a testament to the reifying effects of nature upon the self.  Wordsworth is being made existent through his relation to nature.  Nature, for Wordsworth, justifies the self, or makes it seem real, thus providing him with such intense feelings toward nature.  Remove Wordsworth from nature, and the pre-eminent reifying mechanism of his transcendentally engendered self is removed, thus rendering him dysfunctional.  Everyone has their individual reifying mechanism or mechanisms.  One is usually predominant and there is a dynamic interaction between all the reifying mechanisms in a persons life.

The mind projects onto reality through language.  Language is structured through a system of bi-polarities, and so reality is perceived as bi-polar.  Love/hate, good/evil, joy/sorrow.  Notice how the emotion of hatred is almost identical to the emotion of love.  Perhaps this is why people cling to hate, because it is the semblance of love.  We must not here however become blinded by the homogeneity.  Difference is still the key.  Wittgenstein quoted from King Lear, “I’ll teach you differences”.  So what is the difference between love and hate?  Could there be a greater difference?  One is tempted here to say that  love and hate are both the same and different, and indeed many eastern philosophies attempt to articulate the nature of such things in this very clumsy manner.  We either see the homogeneity of phenomenon or the heterogeneity of phenomena depending upon habituation.  We see one ‘aspect’ or another.  Compare to Wittgenstein’s discussion of the duck-rabbit.  It’s just that we see the heterogeneity between love and hate.  And what difference could be more pronounced but what could be more similar.  Again, language starts to buckle under its own bi-polarity.  We can never get at reality through language, because reality is shaped by language.  This seems a paradox but is not.  Language merely points the way.

The reification process explains why intellectual paradigms are in continual motion, forever moving forwards.  This movement is best explained in the 20^th contrary by the move from modernist through to post modernist through, form structuralist to post structuralist.  The ‘post’ occurs when an intellectual movement starts to ‘lose its existence’ as it were, just as a person ceases to exist as the body's cells can no longer replicate.  The first ‘post’ engenders or reify’s the intellectual movement, giving it life through differentiation.  Contrast is life.  Contrast is reification.  All we need is life to become post-life and immortality will be within our grasp.

The cyclical nature of time.  This is a mark of the symmetry apparent in the universe.

Time is both relative and absolute.  To se it as relativistic is to see ‘an aspect’, to turn a Wittgensteinian phrase, while to see it as absolute is to also ‘see an aspect’.  One sees either the duck or the rabbit in the famous duck-rabbit.  They are both contained within the same image.  The mind creates which image you can see.  The mind constructs reality, and can shift between constructing multiple realities, either relative or absolute.

That time is both relative and absolute is a manifestation of the symmetry apparent in the universe.

If there is a thing, its opposite must exist.

The symmetry apparent in the universe is conceptual.

A concept relies upon homogeneity, an instance upon heterogeneity.

Subjectivity provides the homogeneity apparent in reality, objectivity provides heterogeneity.  A concept is subject, an instance objective.

The mind projects unto, and hence structures reality.  But in turn objective reality provides the relational reification mechanism which substantiates or substantialises the mind.  So in effect the mind reifies itself, through the process of projection and the subsequent ‘return’ through relation with the objective world.  Hence relation can take place.  The mind must create the conditions for its own existence.  It projects onto the world, reifies it and is subsequently reified itself as it comes into contact with its own projected reality.  The charge of solipsism can be heard here, but this is not denying objective reality.  But in order to save the situation something like the thing itself must be evoked.  But this move must be avoided.  There is no essence to the world, only relational conditions.

We must break the shackles of the subject / object distinction to proceed any further.

Because the reification of the self occurs only in relation to objects, it can never be entirely free.  This is not to say that one can not direct their bondage in certain ways.

Freedom and determinism are simple ‘aspects’ of the bi-poplar symmetry apparent within the universe.  Some philosophers are simply ‘aspect blind’.

William Blake perceived the relational nature of the reification of reality when he wrote of the produces and the devourers requiring each for existence to be manifest.  Another example in The Marriage of Heaven and Hell is the mental projection and imposition upon Blake as they view the Leviathan in the abyss below the mills.

One can perhaps imagine a literary theory of reification.  Wordsworth in relation to Nature, Blake in relation to Eternity, Henry King in relation to his dead wife.  In his exequy, one may consider King attempting to supplement the death of part of his own self which dies upon the cessation of his wife with the process of literary reification.  Instead of the self being reified by the love of his wife, it is exchanged by the reification in relation to a poem.  Surrogate reification.  Substitutional reification.

Boiling water burns human flesh because the contrastive differential is sufficiently asymmetric so as to imbalance the reification mechanism, thereby destabilising the reification process and rendering the flesh burnt.  The Reification process occurs within a certain range of differentials, and any contrastive event which exceeds this differential range imbalances the reification process and compromises the integrity of the reified subject.  This manifests in a burning of the skin.

Kant might say subjectivity is the grounds of the possibility of objectivity, while in turn objectivity is the ground of the possibility of subjectivity.  Mind conditions objects, objects condition mind.

The senses are relational mediators between mind and objects.

The narcissism of perception.  To study the structure and form of the world is to study the structure and form of the mind.  The mind reflects onto the world.

When the heart ceases to beat, life ceases.  The heart beat is motion, and when motion ceases, so to does life.  For in motion there is contrast, and in contrast there is reification.

The reification range.  This mechanism engenders the truism everything in moderation.  For the relational contrast to reify the subject, the reifying object must not be outside the ‘reifying range’.  This range is the differential in contrast between two objects.  Hot water burns for it exceeds the reifying range in relation to human flesh.  The reification range explains why extremes are unsustainable.

When an important contrastive reifier is removed from the subjects reification field a substitutional reifier is required to successfully substantialise the reification process.  A child of divorced parents who lives with one parent, will often find a substitutional reifier in a love, music, or art.  The surrogate reifier must be of a similar contrastive magnitude for substantialisers to be successful.  In the case o the child of divorced parents, the new reifier may be inadequate, resulting in a dysfunctional reification of the subject.

Verbal intercourse and sexual intercourse.  Both are attempts to reify the subject, though with different contrastive magnitudes.  It is no mistake they are both referred to as intercourse.  Similarities can tell a great deal about the world.  See Wittgenstein's Tractatus.

The human being has a certain ‘reification range’ which is the parameter of existence.  When the subject falls outside this range, dysfunction results and other reifiers are required to reinvigorate the reification range.

To live purely in the hear and now is to relinquish existence.  Without the reifying effects of past and future, or spatial extension, the subject realises its own lack of inherent existence.  This explains the monks realisation of no-self (in the Buddhist tradition) or God (in the Christian tradition).   Realising god is realising the lack of inherent existence in the subject.  If one permanently lived in the here and now (which is impossible) time would accelerate to such an extent that it would not exist. From birth to death would be the blinking of an eye.  The past and the future slow time down.  The same can be said for space.  To live in the ‘here’ would spell the end for spatial extension.  Space and time collapse in the here and now.  Perhaps they are collapsed anyway, but for the human mind.  But this is solipsism, which is to be avoided.

To hate your parents is to hate yourself.  Their influence is reflected in the very essence of your self (Which is no essence after all).  Their importance in the reification of the subject is unquestioned.  To hate your parents is to hate that very part of yourself that has been reified as a result of your parents influence of your life.

Hate is the founding stone of religion.  Hate of the self compels people to attempt to transcend the self through altruistic means.  Religion is the closure of sublimation.  This is not surprising given that the binary relationship between love and hate implies that love is a refraction of hate.  This is never more true than in religion.

The hot shower only remains enjoyable for a short length of time because the pleasure sensation caused by the hot water can only be reified by the hot water for a given length of time, after which the contrastive influence between the water and the sensation is no longer viable.  This effect also explains why the living organism can only live a finite duration.  Sameness can never persist.  There must always be contrast.

Reifiers of the subject must fall within a certain ‘reification range.’  The limits of this range are the limits of contrast which bring the subject ‘into existence’.  If the contrast is too great, the subject can not come into existence.  A colour at one of the light spectrum can not reify a colour at the other.  We can apply this insight to psychology.  The reifying influence of another individual must fall within a certain reification range, the subject is no longer able to be reified by it, and so the reality of the non-existence of the subject begins to become apparent.  So a person who acts negatively towards you is in effect making you realise your own non-existence.  The negativity must be of a sufficient magnitude for this realisation of the non-existence of the subject to manifest.

When an important reifier is removed from the reification field, the subject is confronted with its own non-existence.  This applies to both inanimate objects and other people, though the effects are not the same in both cases.  This hypothesis explains the pain people feel at the death of a loved one.  The person’s own noon-existence is realised.

P. 37 of Flannery O’Conner’s Everything that Rises Must Converge: “When she looked out any window I her house, she saw the reflection of her own character.”  When we look out into the world, we see ourselves.  This however is not mere idealism.  For that part of ourselves that we see in the world is a ‘reflection onto’ reality.  This is where Kant would bring in the ‘thing in itself’ but there is no need.  Our mind does not project onto things in themselves, but rather projects onto reified, essentially non-existent, objects.  Again I reiterate this is not idealism.  The external reified non-inherently existing objects are just as ‘real’ as the mind which projects onto them.  The subject is itself a reified non-inherently existing thing.

The subjective/objective distinction is shown as false if we consider that each of us as individuals is part of the larger universe.  With this in mind, we can see the objective is no longer distinct from the subject.  Through the individual, the universe is looking out on itself.  The objective is perceiving the objective.  The subjective is perceiving the subjective.  This does not, however, entail idealism.  The world is myself, and myself is the world.

Culture is essentially a dog, that in chasing its tail with such vigour, has become airborne.

Thesis title: The subject as relationally reified.

Soper, K., Humanism and Antihumanism.  “Hegel:  Consciousness exists for itself only when its autonomy is recognised by another consciousness; to be self aware is to require another who is self aware of one’s own self awareness.” P. 29

Lukacs theory of Reification, Soper, p.44.

Title for thesis:  Subject and World:  A study of Relational reification.

Phenomenology.  “There is no consciousness that is not intentional, ie. consciousness of something”, Soper p. 54

Reification in Being and Time, Heidegger.

The function of language in the reification process: Designating objects as substantial.  The icing on the cake.

In aesthetic experience the reification process separates on two different levels.  It operates on the objective- Objective level, that is intra-object and on the subjective-Objective, that is between the experiencing subject and the object (the work of art).

An object is beautiful because it has the sufficient contrastive differential to propel the human subject into existence.

Through aesthetic experience we come into existence.

Time both does and does not exist.  To say it exists is to forget that it does not exist.  To say it does not exist is to forget that it does.

Hazlett, quoted from J. D. Ohara “Hazlitt and the functions of the Imagination” in Publications of the Modern language Association of America, Vol 81., 1966, pp. 552 562.  “everything is this world, the meanest incident or object may receive a light and an importance from association with objects and with the heart of man; and the variety this created is as endless as it is striking and profound.”.

We are free to direct our bondage.

The artist, in creating a work of art, is propelling himself into existence.

Ruskin "Lectures on Art" p. 84

"You will find that this love of beauty is an essential part of all healthy human nature..."

Aesthetic experience is such a powerful reifying influence because in it's internal structuring it itself manifests the reification process. Colours are only reifying in relation to other colours.  Notes in a piece of music are only reified in relation to other notes in a score. This is why the human subject is so well reified or materialised into existence by aesthetic experience. The work of art manifests the reification process itself through its internal structure.

The poetry of de-materialisation:

A poem, properly constructed, can act as a de-materialiser rather than as a materialiser or substantialiser (formally reifier). In normal aesthetic experience, the  poem acts to relationally materialise the human subject in much the same way as a work of art. If the poem however exhibits certain characteristics, it can in effect act as a de-materialiser, actually providing the grounds by which the human subject starts to lose its existence.

Such a poem may only be read once.

It must take as long to read as if you were standing and looking at a painting.

Familiarity reduces the effectiveness of the de-materialiser.

When the human subject is de-materialised it comes closer to an experience of God, the infinite, Brahma, universal mind.

The poem must contain grammatical unfamiliarity, a stretching of the use of language, a mixture of comprehensibility and incomprehensibility. There must be enough comprehensibility for the intellect to become engaged in the poem, but not enough to provide a materialising effect.

The reading of such a poem may impart 'enlightenment' to a person if written correctly.

The poem acts like a sense deprivation chamber, removing the surrounding materialisers, thereby propelling the human subject, or the ego, out of existence and closer to God.

Free verse is the most effective form of poetry for this de-materialisation to occur.

Such explanations help explain modern art's insistence on fragmentation and distraction. They are attempting to de-materialise the human subject.

The materialiser, the de-materialiser, and the non-materialiser:

Internal relations with a work of form. The question of form. Noel Carrol, p. 140

Considered in isolation the human subject lacks inherent existence.

An object of art is a concentrated matrix of contrastive components that is effective in providing the sufficient contrastive differential to relationally materialise the human subject. It is more effective than other objects because of the correct complexity of its contrastive intensity. (this needs work)

Emotions are a direct manifestation of the process of relational materialisation.

Is pretension pretension when it is intentionally pretentious, does intention make pretension unpretentious. Now that is mere pretension.

The "self-in-itself" is not only unsayable but in fact does not exist.

A common platitude

Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.

A homely aphorism

Those who have a knowledge of history repeat it never the less, the difference being they know they are repeating it.

Emotion is a direct consequence or result or manifestation of the process of relational materialisation. As the subject is relationally materialised, emotion results. Emotion is a symptom of the human subject being relationally materialised. This is why music evokes emotion. Music, being a substantialiser in a person's materialisation field, evokes emotion because it is relationally materialising the subject.

Subjectivity, as being partially materialised in relation to its own projections, ie egoistic substantialisers, is in effect the universe attempting to create the means of its own continued existence through unity, rather than diversity.

The distinction between internal substantialisers (egoistic, unified) and external substantialisers (natural objective).

Are a person's interests an expression of their inner self, or do these interests in fact provide the conditions for that 'inner self' (which does not exist by the way) to exist. In choosing a particular interest, a person is choosing a substantialiser to relationally materialise their own existence.

An insterest says something about a person not because it is an expression of their pre-existing being, but because it actually provides the grounds by which that person comes into existence. A person's interests determines the constituents of the materialisation field, thereby creating the conditions that bring that person into existence. People actually create who they are by the interests they choose to participate in.

Colour and sound are manifestations of the relational materialisation process. Symptoms of its ubiquitous operation.

The Doctrine of Radical Contrast:

Nothing exists but contrast. Language dupes us into believing in compartmentalized existence. This is not a Neitzchian Doctrine. Existence comes out of the contrast between nothingness and nothingness. So while nothing exists, contrast does. This seems a contradiction, but is the only way to express reality. Reality is composed of a relational matrix of non-existent spaces. In this way existence is fashioned out of non-existence.

p. 100 Being and Nothingness: Being-for-itself and being-for-others.

p. 125 B&N: Being-in-itself as nothingness.

p. 136: "Human reality by which lack appears in the world must itself be a lack.”  This accords with the non-substantiality of the subject.

p. 138: "Human reality is before all else its own nothingness" ditto.

p. 140: "consciousness can exist only as engaged in this being which surrounds it on all sides. Shall we say that it is a being relative to consciousness"

p. 172: "I have to be in order not to be, I have not to be it in order to be it." The relational materialisation of being and non-being.

The present is simply a manifestation of the contrastive differential between the past and future in the same way that colour is simply a manifestation of the contrastive differential between nothingness and nothingness that characterises existence. In this way the present exists in non-existence. Such a manifestation is a direct result of the process of relational materialisation.

B& N p. 194: "This nothingness introduces a quasi-multiplicity into the heart of being." Existence is founded upon nothingness which engenders multiplicity.

Just as when an embankment forms at the juncture of two colliding continental plates, so too colour ( or sound, taste, touch) emerges when nothingness relationally materialises through a contrast with nothingness. Hence the arising of existence from non-existence.

What makes consciousness different from non-consciousness if both are brought into existence through the process of relational materialisation? The answer is that non-consciousness is brought into existence through the relational materialisation of nothingness as contrasted with nothingness. Consciousness is relationally materialised through a contrast with the products of the non-conscious relational materialisation just mentioned. So consciousness is twice removed from nothingness. The contrast between nothingness and nothingness relationally materialised objective substantiality. This objective substantiality contrasts to relationally materialised consciousness. (Consciousness and subjectivity are here used interchangeably)

This ties into the whole question of how consciousness arises from the non-consciousness.

A further note on the previous explanation of consciousness. While consciousness is twice removed from the contrast between nothingness and nothingness that relationally materialises non-consciousness (objective substantiality), the contrast between nothingness and nothingness in reality also operates to relationally materialise consciousness directly. The contrast between nothingness and nothingness relationally materialises object substantiality which in truth relationally materialises consciousness. But as consciousness is still included within existence, it too is subject to the contrastive differential engendered between nothingness and nothingness. So consciousness emerges from the complexity of a "doubling" of the relational materialisation process. Hence the characterising feature of consciousness: complexity. (This seems a direct contradiction of Kant).

B&N p.239 "...in one sense consciousness in isolation is an abstraction." Consciousness, considered in isolation from the world, lacks inherent existence.

B&N p.239 "the for-itself as the foundation of its own nothingness." Consciousness rests on nothingness, creating inherent existence.

B&N p.239 "consciousness must be therefore consciousness of something." This is because consciousness only has existence in relation to something other.

B&N p.246 "And I,... am the nothingness."

"The knower is the pure reflection of a non-being" p. 246

p. 246 "...the knower is absolutely nothing but a pure negation, he does not find or recover himself anywhere - he is not."

p. 250 "That does not mean the one being needs all being in order to exist." No, but one being needs some being in order to exist.

p. 250 "The presence of the for-itself to the world can be realised only by its presence to one or several particular things, and conversely its presence to a particular thing can be realised only on the grounds of presence to the world."

p. 250 "If the painter wants to vary any one of these factors (colour/light) the others change as well, no because they are linked by some sort of law but because at bottom they are one and the same being." The alteration of one factor changes another because the second factor only exists in relation to the first, and so changing the first necessarily changes the second.

p. 263 "The ideal nothingness in-itself is quantity. Quantity in fact is pure exteriority." So nothingness can be in a contrastive relationship with nothingness through its characteristic quantity.

p. 274 "The absences which appear behind things do not appear as absences to be made present by things."

The "absences which appear behind things" are equivalent to the lack of inherent existence that characterises the world.

p. 290 B&N Satre talks of "substantiated nothing". A substantiated nothing can enter into a contrastive relation with other substantiated nothings to relationally materialise the human subject. It can also contrast to manifest colour and sound as described earlier. Hence existence, stemming from nothing, is substantialised in relation to itself as nothingness.

p. 295 "...the relation of the for-itself to the in-itself is a fundamental ontological relation."

p. 321 Hegel's refutation of Solipsism rests on the presupposition that my existence depends on my relation to the other. But what Satre failed to recognise was that my existence depends not only on my relation to the other conscious beings, but also to non-conscious objects.

"I am...a being-for-itself which is for-itself only through another" p.321

Hegel Phenomenology of Mind

p.330 Heidegger "this the characteristic of being of human reality is being with others."

p.330 "The other is the ex-centric limit which contributes to the constitution of my being."

Pain is simply the dissipation of existence (its de-materialisation).

p.335-336 "The 'being-with' conceived as a structure of my being."

There is a hierarchy of substantialisers within a person's materialisation field.

There is a materialisation threshold. A maximum number of substantialisers that are required within the subjects materialisation field to relationally materialise it. This has consequences for psychology.

Human consciousness does not entirely determine my active reality as the Romantics thought. It is however constitutive of the matrix of contrastive differentials that relationally materialises existence. So it is a part of the matrix that brings existence into existence.

The doctrine of Radical Contrastive Multiplicity.

Two is the smallest number.

Why do we like some things and not others? What governs interest? An object (substantialiser) which is of a sufficient contrastive magnitude will fall within the subject's materialisation range, thereby being of a sufficient contrastive magnitude to relationally materialise the subject. The materialisation range delineates  the suitable contrastive magnitude of any object/substantialiser within the subject's materialisation field, that is, acting to relationally materialise the subject. Objects whose contrastive magnitude fall outside this range act to destabilize the subject. Water which is too hot will burn a person. Music which is too loud will deafen a person. This is different to the de-materialisation of the subject which occurs when substantialisers are removed from the materialisation field. Substantialisers can be material (objects) or mental (ego directives). Pain is a symptom of the dematerialisation process just as colour and sound are a symptom of the materialisation process (objectively). Pleasure is a symptom of the materialisation process also (subjectively). But because the materialisation process operates on difference, a single substantialiser will not relationally materialise the subject indefinitely. Sameness results in dematerialisation. Contrast is essentially difference. So what is the difference between de-stabilising of the subject and de-materialisation? De-stability is negative, de-materialisation is positive. Both are painful. A full de-materialisation culminates in an experience of God/the infinite/Brahma/nirvana. De-stability culminates in death. How does dematerialisation operate? When a substantialiser is removed from the materialisation field the subject beings to de-materialise. Pain is a symptom of the process. De-stability results when the contrastive magnitude of a substantialiser exceeds the subject's materialisation range. Continual exposure however to a substantialiser with a greater magnitude than the person's materialisation range can in fact cause the materialisation range to extend, given that the contrastive magnitude is not too great. The excess contrastive magnitude must only exceed the subject's materialisation range by a moderate amount. Otherwise full de-stability will result. (De-stability is not the correct word to use here).

No, I think de-stability is still de-materialisation. There are simply two forms of de-materialisation.

1) Contact with a substantialiser with greater contrastive magnitude than the subject's materialisation range or

2) The removal of substantialisers from the subject's materialisation field.

So in this case not all de-materialisation lends to the God experience. What's the difference between positive and negative de-materialisation? Some experiences of pain are permanently debilitating. While others lead to enlightenment. Both are the result of de-materialisation.

The distinction between corporeal de-materialisation and mental de-materialisation. Corporeal de-materialisation results in physical death. Mental dematerialisation results in the death of the self. The culmination of a full mental de-materialisation is the God experience.

Sense deprivation results in de-materialisation. But does this lead to the God experience? A difficulty.

A substantialiser can be physical or mental. It can be a piece of music, a painting, another person, an idea.

Another human being is perhaps the most effective substantialiser because they provide both physical and mental materialisation potential.

A scene of natural beauty can be a substantialiser. A house a person lives in, a car...

Economics is driven by the need for  substantialisers within the individual's materialisation field.

Psychology is the study of the subject's interaction with substantialisers. Its continual need to be relationally materialised and its reactions when it is or is not.

Psychology is the study of the subject's commerce with its substantialisers.

The relational materialisation process operates by contrast. Contrast operates through difference. "I'll teach you differences" quotes Wittgenstein from Shakespeare. Similarity results in de-materialisation. Death is the exhaustion of difference. The triumph of sameness. Cells in the body can only replicate a limited number of times before difference becomes sameness.

Those who seek to deny pleasure seek to destroy human existence. For pleasure is the result of the subject's contrast with the world, a result of successful materialisation. Those who continually seek pleasure, however, succumb to the adumbration of similarity. Pleasure is no longer pleasurable when continually experienced. This is the very nature of pleasure. Continual exposure to pleasure narrows the subject's materialisation range to such an extent that no substantialiser can be of a correct magnitude to relationally materialise the subject.

Being and Nothingness p. 345 "The man is defined by his relation to the world and by his relation to myself."

B&N p.349 "...and I am nothing. There is nothing there but a pure nothingness inscribing a certain objective ensemble and throwing it into relief outlined by the world."

B&N p.349 "I am for myself only as I am a pure reference to the other." And so is the other. And so myself and the other reciprocally substantialise each other in the midst of our own nothingness. The subject is relationally materialised in contrast to the other.

B&N p.350 "Thus I am my ego for the other in the midst of a world which flows toward the other."

B&N p.356 "being-in-the-midst of the-world-for-others"

Thesis title: Relational Materialisation: The emergence of subjectivity through the inter-relation of contrastive differentials.

If Satre is correct in saying "I am for myself only as I am a pure reference to the other", which indeed he is, then he contradicts himself by advocating the freedom of subjectivity. If the subject is only materialised in relation to the other, then it cannot maintain freedom. It is determined by the other. the other arbitrates to extent of its existential possibilities. And so the subject does not do so. Hence subjectivity is determined, not free.

Things to read: Heidegger, Husserl, Hegel.

B&N p.366 "I am my own nothingness."

B&N p.382 "I am responsible for the existence of the other. It is I who by the very affirmation of my free spontaneity cause there to be an other and not simply an infinite reference of consciousness to self."

BUN p.383 "The other and I are in fact co-responsible for the other's existence."

B&N 388 "I make the other be in the midst of the world." In actual fact it is both me and the world that makes the other be.

B&N p.388 "Therefore what I apprehend a real characteristics of the other is a being-in-situation." This ties together my thoughts, Satre's and Wittgenstein's. Me - subject in relation to the world. Satre - for-itself in relation to the other. Wittgenstein - self in relation to a community of language users.

We can only apprehend symptoms, not essences. Symptoms fool us by hinting at or pointing to essence.

B&N p. 405 "We know that there is not a for-itself on the one hand and a world on the other as two closed entities for  which we must subsequently seek some explanation as to how they communicate. The for-itself is a relation to the world."

B&N p.406 "Idealism has rightly insisted on the fact that relation evades the world."

B&N p.407 "Man and the world are relative beings, and the principle of their being is the relation."

B&N p.407 "To come into existence, for me, is to unfold my distances from things and thereby to cause things 'to be there'."

B&N p.415 "All our personal determinations suppose the world and arise as relations to the world."

B&N p.419 "My body is everywhere in the world."

B&N p.429 "It is only in a world that there can be a body."

B&N p.439 Satre speaks of the "total contingency of my consciousness." It can in no way then be free.

B&N p.439 "To be conscious is always to be conscious of the world."

B&N p.452 Subjectivity is relationally materialised not only on the mental plane but also on the physical "Far from the relation of the body to objects being a problem, we never apprehend the body outside this relation."

"A body is a body as this mass of flesh which it is defined by the table which the body looks at, the chair in which it sits, the pavement on which it walks, etc." p.452

B&N p.452 "The body is the totality of meaningful relations to the world. In this sense it is defined also by reference to the air which it breaths, the water which it drinks, to the food which it eats."

Nothing contrasts with nothing to produce something. But a something that is still nothing. This something-nothing is nothingness in universal totality.

The point of contrast: At the contrastive juncture between nothingness and nothingness sound and colour become manifest. Colour and sound emerge at the point of contrast.

The contrastive juncture: just as colour and sound emerge at the contrastive juncture, so too does subjectivity.

Subjectivity is nothing less than a complex juncture of contrast: It is a second order juncture, resulting from the contrast of objectivity that has been relationally materialised at the contrastive juncture between nothingness and nothingness.

The world results from the contrast between nothingness and nothingness. Subjectivity results from the contrast between world constituent and world constituent. But because subjectivity is also in the world, it also is relationally materialised at the contrastive juncture between nothingness and nothingness. Hence it is a complex two-tiered juncture.

Thesis title: Relational materialisation: The emergence of subjectivity from the juncture between contrastive differentials.

B&N p.472 "The for-itself is not the in-itself and cannot be it. But it is a relation to the in-itself."

B&N p.472 "Cut off on every side by the in-itself, the for-itself cannot escape it because the for-itself is nothing and it is separated from the in-itself by nothing."

B&N p.472 "The for-itself is relation."

B&N p. 472 "The other holds a secret - the secret of what I am. He makes me and thereby possesses me."

B&N p.478 "The notion of ownership by which love is so often explained is not actually primary. Why should I want to appropriate the other if it were not precisely that the other makes me be?"

B&N p480 "It is in so far as I am the object which the other makes come into being that I must be the inherent link to his very transcendence."

B&N p.485 "...it is the fact that a subject only experiences itself as an object for the other."

B&N p.500 Satre asks "What therefore is desire?" Desire is the pull toward existence. That yearning for the inclusion within a subject's materialisation field of substantialisers of a suitable contrastive magnitude to effect its relational materialisation. Desire for an object is the pull toward subjectivity and the perpetuating of its existence.

We are deceived in apprehending individuation. The misapprehension of individuality stems from a totality that can only perspectively perceive its own totality.

There is a tremendous truth being overlooked. Subjectivity is universal. I am the universe, you are the universe. We are the universe perceiving itself through itself. Subjectivity is an interiority of universal proportions. Subjectivity is a universal self-reflexivity. The subject, as object, is in an identity relationship with the perceiving subject which is other. An identity which of course is only manifest in radical differentiation. In looking at you, I look at myself in a universal totality. And vice versa. Your pain is my pain felt as a deferral of potentiality that is dispersed perpetually.

Knowledge is universal subjectivity bringing itself into existence through self reflexivity. In learning about itself the universe creates the conditions of its own possibility. To know is to exist in a relation to universal self perpetuation. Knowledge brings the subject and hence universal totality as subjectivity, into existence. Knowledge is the universe perceiving itself, and in this perception coming into existence. Knowledge is the mechanism of universal self perpetuation.

Action is also a mechanism of universal self perpetuation.

The universe is a dog chasing its tail so fervorously that it has become airborne.

Knowledge is the mechanism of universal self perpetuation through self reflexivity.

Knowledge is the nothingness of subjectivity contrasting with the nothingness of objectivity to produce universal self perpetuation through the interiority-exteriority of self reflexivity.

Knowledge brings the universe into existence through the contrastive inter relation between the nothingness of subjectivity and the nothingness of objectivity.

So knowledge is the contrast between nothingness and nothingness.

Additionally existence is a product of the contrast between nothingness and nothingness.

We are eternally determinate unless we become aware of the entirety of our determinateness. Hence in knowledge is freedom. "And the truth shall set you free." Nothing changes with such knowledge, only that our bondage becomes freedom. We are free in the knowledge of our determinateness. Can anyone ever have full knowledge of that which determines them? Yes. You can either learn everything, or sever yourself from knowledge entirely, and the entirety of your determination will arise of its own accord. Both avenues to freedom are equally as arduous. One does not learn everything in one lifetime, nor does one sever oneself from knowledge in one life time. In certain de-materialised states, knowledge arises spontaneously.

There is not simply one de-materialised state of which pain is a manifest symptom. The dematerialisation of the subject allows varying degrees and stages. Not just a descending scale, but a lateral one as well.

If knowledge ceases, so does the process of relational materialisation that brings the subject into existence. Dematerialisation results.

Dematerialisation is the universe descending back into totality from individuation.

Death is perhaps the ultimate dematerialisation, short of enlightenment.

But totality always relationally materialises back into individuation, such is the nature of totality - individuation which must osculate to ensure the perpetuation of self perpetuating self reflexivity.

Thesis intro: I make no apologies for the following account of subjectivity. It unashamedly delineates the big nature of the subject in relation to the world. It is an approach that has been lost sight of by much modern philosophy. The modern philosopher seems content to tinker around the edges of tried and true problems. What philosophy should do is present a world view much in the vein of Kant, Heidegger or Satre. It should approach totality with an uncompromising attempt at verisimilitude. Not a verisimilitude that attempts to capture the largeness of reality. This is what the world is like. And maybe even a few whys. (Not too many of course). This is the way it is because of this, this and this. There are nothing but bold broad strokes on my philosophical canvass. Despite the polemics of scepticism, the universe is constructed in a particular way. It is the task of the philosopher to uncover the structure of this construction. To expose it to the rest of the world. (This is a more important task than one at first realises. The very maintenance of existence depends on it to some extent). There is a reality and it can be known. It is quite demoralizing that this should be such a bold statement. The philosopher has a duty to make it known. But such knowledge is in no way exiguous. It is breathtakingly large. Hence not approximated to the truth, no philosophical verisimilitude will ever be successful by being small. Life/Death. Love/Hate. Pleasure/Pain. The universe/nothingness. These are the big philosophical issues. But have they been done to death, I hear you say? Let me ask another question. Have we got it right yet? I can be safe in saying that your answer is no. So we must revise it then. With fresh eyes and courageous hearts. To shrink from this great task is to essentially lose our grip on existence. Many have fallen where the alter of truth stands, much blood has been spilt around its base. Should one flee the carnage? Retreat to the safety of the lower ground? A person once told me that the happiest time in their life was in the jungle in Vietnam. We must continue the assault with sword in hand. The universe will reveal its secrets, but only to the courageous. The current malaise of post-modernity (which is really a front for nihilistic skepticism) has been a retreat from truth into the abyss of intellectual tomfoolery. It is as if we thought we had nowhere left to go, so we thought we'd just entertain our egos with the extent of our vocabularies. But, while we are close, there is still a long way to go, and to succumb to narcissistic word plays is to give up the journey all together. Post modernism is narcissism. And it wouldn't surprise me if it acknowledged the fact. We must use every conceptual tool available in our assault on the citadel of truth, without becoming so infatuated by them that we leave our swords to gaze in amorous wonder at their complexity. Let us simply consider the postmodernists as the fallen. They are the unfortunate casualties of a war which has indeed taken many. Even with out heavy casualties we must press the assault, leaving the fallen behind in the mud. Is there room for the small picture in the front ranks? No, of course not. The big picture is on point duty, the small picture only brings up the rear. Truth favors the brave.

The bigger the contrastive magnitude of a substantialiser while still being within the subject's materialisation range, the greater the manifestation of pleasure which results from the felicitous relational materialisation. This contrastive magnitude is of course relative to the magnitude of the subject. Both are magnitudes of nothingness.

However continual exposure to substantialisers with large contrastive magnitudes causes an increase in the magnitude of the subject. The contrastive differential is between substantialiser and subject is then reduced, resulting in a gradual reduction in pleasure engendered by the relational materialisation process. The magnitude of the subject is its materialisation range.

Death occurs when the subject's materialisation range has enlarged through continuous exposure to substantialisers of varying contrastive magnitude, to the extent that it no longer provides the necessary contrastive differential in relation to the world so as to ensure its continuing materialisation in relation to that world. The subject's materialisation range has equalized in magnitude with all external substantialisers through repeated exposure, and therefore is unable to generate the necessary contrastive differential with the surrounding substantialisers to ensure that the relational materialisation process propels the subject into existence. Death is therefore and equalisation, an equilibration. This is the death of old age. What is sudden death or death through disease?

The secret to long life then is to change. Remain fresh to the world.

Sudden death occurs when the subject is exposed to a substantialiser of a contrastive magnitude that far exceeds its materialisation range. The excessive contrastive differential causes the immediate dematerialisation of the subject.

Death is the dematerialisation of the subject.

Subjectivity contributes to the emergence of objectivity by being a part of the contrastive matrix that relationally materialises it. And vice versa.

Existence is a matrix of contrastive differentials.

Difference is the marrow of life. But continual difference is in fact similarity, so difference must be tempered or contrasted with similarity to maintain its materialising potential. This is a paradox. For difference to avoid being similarity it must be contrasted with similarity, a contrast which helps contrastive difference. If there was only difference then it would become de-sensitised to itself and cease to be difference, in effect becoming similarity. Difference must be combined with similarity to avoid becoming similarity.

For change to be possible there must be a continuous exchange of contrastive differentials.

B&N p.507 The materialising potential of sexual contact. "The caress causes the other to be born as flesh for me and for herself."

B&N p.507 "The caress is designed to cause the others' body to be born, through pleasure..."

B&N p.508 "And so possession truly appears as a doubly reciprocal incarnation." Sexual contact relationally materialises both the subject and the other.

B&N p.508 "Thus in desire there is an attempt at the incarnation of consciousness...in order to realise the incarnation of the other."

B&N p.510 "This desire is a primitive mode of our relations with the other which constitutes the other"

A pure here-and-now is a complete dematerialisation of the subject.

B&N p.514 "Each consciousness by incarnating itself has realised the incarnation of the other."

B&N Satre remarks "Pleasure is the death and the failure of desire." Pleasure is in fact the felicitous completion of desire in its program to propel the subject into existence through directing the subject to engage within the matrix of contrastive differentials that eventually leads to the subject's being relationally materialised.

B&N p.516 "desire is the desire to appropriate this incarnated consciousness."

Vanity de-materialises the subject. The subject, in observing its own reflection, attempts a relational materialisation in contrast to a substantialiser that maintains a contrastive magnitude identical to that of the subject itself. Since there is no contrastive differential between a subject and a substantialiser that maintains the same contrastive magnitude, the relational materialisation process reaches equilibrium, much in the same way as when the subject dies.  The subject subsequently de-materialises. Not entirely, for the subject's materialisation  field still contains other substantialisers that are acting to relationally materialise the subject, substantialisers that still provide and adequate contrastive differential to keep the subject in existence.

Thesis title: Relational materialisation: the emergence of subjectivity from the juncture between contrastive differentials.

B&N p.527 "Thus we shall be able to say that the for-itself is sexual in its very upsurge in the force of the other."

B&N p.530 "From the moment I exist I establish a factual unit to the other's freedom."

To murder causes the radical de-materialisation of the subject. The human as substantialiser is the ultimate contrastive magnitude that can effect the relational materialisation of the subject. It is a substantialiser which is the same and yet different from the subject. Whereas the reflection of the subject is a substantialiser of equal contrastive magnitude to the subject, and so causes the equalization of the subject and hence its de-materialisation. The human-as-substantialiser provides the most effective contrastive differential in order to relationally materialise the subject. It is so effective because it not only operates under the edicts of difference, as indeed all substantialisers do, but also under the edicts of similarity. Now if the human as substantialiser only relationally materialised in terms of its similarity, it would of course de-materialise the subject. But in fact it materialises the subject in relation to both its similarity with the subject and its difference. This lengthens the complexity of the relational materialisation process, as the subject is exposed to a contrastive differential that is operating not only between difference, but also between similarity-difference. Hence the power of the relational materialisation process is greatly heightened through an increased subtlety in contrastive variation. The contrastive differential is more complex and more subtle, resulting in an increased contrastive variation. The contrastive juncture that instantiates subjectivity is consequently greatly invigorated. There are more points of contrast between the subject and the substantialiser. Os the subject is brought into existence with a greater level of contrastive variation, and of course difference is the marrow of existence.

So back to why murder causes the radical de-materialisation of the subject. It does so because, to remove such an influential substantialiser as a human being from the subject's immediate materialisation field is to remove the means by which the subject most effectually relationally materialises. This removal not only effects the individual subject, but also affects the condition of the broader contrastive matrix that characterises existence. Through murder, not only the individual subject begins to de-materialise, but the world does also. Of course, the impact of one murder is more profound in de-materialising the individual than the world, but the world is dematerialised nonetheless, even though more subtly. The greater the number of human substantialisers removed from the world, the greater the affect of its de-materialisation.

Because subjectivity is essentially universal self reflexivity, the demise of the subject reduces the capacity of the world to bring itself into existence through the relationally materialising effects of knowledge and action. The world begins to fade when a human being ceases. Of course the birth rate far exceeds the death rate, so there is little chance of the universe going out of existence through lack of subjectivity. The world will always contain subjectivity if it is to remain a world.

Hate is the subject's wish to remove a substantialiser from its materialisation field for fear of its de-materialising influence. Because the subject only exists in relation to its substantialisers, these substantialisers necessarily constitute the subject's subjectivity. If a substantialiser is causing a destability within the subject's mental (mental abuse) or physical (physical abuse) materialisation field, by either removing potential mental substantialisers from the mental materialisation field, or destabilising the subject's physical contrastive differential, then the subject may well wish the removal of that substantialiser from its materialisation field, for it is causing a de-materialisation.

All duality lends complexity to the relational materialisation process.

Psychosis can result when too many substantialisers are removed from the subject's materialisation field. In the fact of impending de-materialisation, the subject desperately attaches to both the remaining mental and physical substantialisers with a force that fragments the subject.

These thoughts stem from nothing more than a felicitous contrastive nexus.

Creativity is a contrastive nexus that becomes manifest in relation to the totality of contrastive differentials that interrelate to relationally materialise the subject. This is not simply a subjective totality but a subjective-objective totality of universal proportions. The universal matrix of contrastive differentials give birth to a subjective creativity through a synchronicity of aligned substantialisers.

The greater the complexity of the contrastive differential while still falling within the subject's materialisation range, the greater the intensity of the relational materialisation. This explains aesthetics, love and friendship.

Well how does one explain the intense beauty of simplicity? In fact simple things are often more beautiful than the complex.

The complexity being touted here is not only the manifest complexity inherent internally within the substantialiser. It is a relational complexity manifest in contrastive differentials. So an object can be intensely beautiful i.e. be an intensely felicitous substantialiser, and yet be simple, because it is in the relation between the substantialiser and the subject that complexity is a virtue. What then constitutes such complexity? It is an inter-relation between the substantialiser, the surrounding substantialisers in the universal contrastive matrix, the subject and the internal mental substantialisers of the subject (and of course the internal contrastive constituency of the substantialiser). It is not, however, the sheer weight of complexity that instantiates intensity of the relational materialisation process. It is a complexity that accords with the subject's materialisation range. It is not however simply a mean, but does approximate one. It is a level of complexity that saturates the subject's materialisation range without spilling beyond it. A contrastive differential cannot be too complex, but complex enough to maximise the intensity of relational materialisation. This is a constituent of the contrastive magnitude of a substantialiser. Such a magnitude is not simply an essential property of a substantialiser. It is itself an emergent property of the relation of the substantialiser with the other constituents of the contrastive complex. This complex is the subject in addition to the surrounding substantialisers and may be outside this field. And so they say, the disturbance created by butterfly wings in South America affects the weather in Australia.

B&N p.536 "we have proved that the existence of the for-itself in the midst of others was as its origin a metaphysical and contingent fact."

The structure of the world: a matrix of contrastive differentials.

The structure of subjectivity: a juncture of second order contrastive differentials.

The world results from the contrast between nothingness and nothingness. Subjectivity results from the contrast between world and world. Subjectivity is therefore a second order contrast. This is why subjectivity is a universal self-reflexivity. The world, being a result of a first order contrast, is one dimensional and can not observe itself. Subjectivity, being once removed from the world can look back on it. Hence subjectivity is universal self reflexivity of a second order contrast. Because subjectivity is also in the world, it also results from the contrast between nothingness and nothingness. Subjectivity is therefore a concentrated juncture of a second order contrast.

Subjectivity is therefore a concentrated second order juncture between contrastive differentials.

Subjectivity is universal self reflexivity resulting from the juncture between contrastive differentials of a concentrated second order.

When the subject's contrastive differential with the world has been equalised, resulting in total de-materialisation and hence death, the subject does not simply commit to a nihilistic cessation. The subject which is no longer a subject is still subject to the contrastive differential between nothingness and nothingness that provided the first order basis for its worldly existence.  So the subject merges with the nothingness that is the basis of the world. It is then up to religion to explain what happens to the post-subject once it has been assimilated back into the nothingness from which it emerged. From this nothingness came the world. It is a nothingness that potentialises somethingness.

Death is the dematerialisation of the subject from within the world/world contrastive matrix (from the plane of objectivity) and a re-assimilation with the nothingness/nothingness contrastive matrix.

The world is a contrastive matrix. A matrix of contrastive differentials.

The world is an ocean. Waves are waves because troughs are troughs. The trough relationally materialises the wave.

Because continued existence depends upon difference, the cells in the body are unable to replicate independently. A reproduction is essentially an act of similarity. Continued similarity eventually leads to de-materialisation. Bearing on an act of similarity, cellular reproduction necessarily leads to de-materialisation. Similarity provides no contrast, and contrast is the foundation of coming-into-being.

Satre is wrong regarding freedom. How can a being that is defined in relation to the other ever be free?

There is no will as such. The concept of a will smacks of autonomy and essences. Volition is a much more agreeable term.

B&N p.593 "Thus the first phenomenon of being in the world is the original relation between the totality of the in-itself or world and my own totality detotalised."

B&N p. 594 Satre wields Kant's reciprocity thesis as his own. "I can perceive the hammer only on the ground of the world, but conversely, I can outline this act of 'hammering' only on the ground of the totality of myself and in terms of that totality."

There is the question of originality in philosophy. But if the world is structured a particular way, and when philosophers have characterised that structure, how is one supposed to be original?

B&N p.630 Satre has simply appropriated Kant's reciprocity thesis. "Human reality originally receives its place in the midst of things; human reality is that by which something we call place comes to things. Without human reality there would have been neither space nor place, and yet this human reality by which placing comes to receive its place among things without having any say in the matter."

B&N p.631 "This place which I am is a relation. A universal relation, to be sure, but a relation all the same. If I am limited to exiting my place, I can not at the same time be elsewhere in order to establish the fundamental relation, I can not have even a tiny comprehension of the object in relation to which my place is defined."

B&N p.638 Satre writes "Since freedom is choice, it is change." This is the direct antithesis of verisimilitude. Change is in fact necessity. It is the flood which carries away the village of humanity. In the form of change I realise the immensity of my determination.

B&N p.651 "This is because in choosing an end, I choose to have relations with these existants and because these existants have relations among it themselves. I choose that they should enter into combination to make known to me what I am."

B&N p.653 "...it is by play of nothingness that 'there is' the in-itself - that is, things."

B&N p.666 "...it is in its effort to choose itself as a personal self that the for-itself sustains in existence certain social and abstract characteristics which make of it a man (a woman)...in this sense each for-itself is responsible in its being for the existence of the human race."

Consciousness is a narcissistic universal self reflexivity. Indeed this is merely a quotation of Hegel.

B&N p.702 "...the for-itself is nothing other than its situation."

The present is the contrastive juncture between the past and future.

B&N p.714 "The individual is only the intersection of universal schemata."

A medical condition becomes resistant to a drug treatment through repeated exposure because the effectiveness of the treatment is based in difference.

B&N p.720 Satre speaks of "the total relation to the world by which the subject constitutes himself as self."

We can choose how we are constituted by changing the substantialisers within our materialisation field.

B&N p.722 The subjects lot of inherent existence ""The for-itself is defined ontologically as a lack of being."

B&N p.723 "The for-itself is the being which is to itself its own lack of being."

B&N p.727 "Both consider man in the world and do not imagine that one can question the being of a man without taking into account all his situation." Again this thought ties my thoughts with Satre's and Wittgenstein's.

A artist is usually one who has a deficiency in their materialisation field, either a lost substantialiser or an anti substantialiser within the field. The subject is experiencing difficulty in coming into existence as the relational materialisation process has become destabilised as a result. The subject then attempts to create through a subjective expansion, additional substantialisers to constitute their materialisation field. Substantialisers which are created through a subjective expression are particularly effective in helping to relationally materialise the subject. They maintain the necessary contrastive differential to properly materialise the subject through the difference to the subject they maintain.

A work of art is not the subject. However, they maintain a degree of similarity with the subject as the work of art is an expression of the subject's subjectivity. It comes from the artist and so in this sense is similar to the artist. So the work of art is both different to the subject and similar. Why is this the most effective construction of a substantialiser? Because difference by itself is certainly an effective characteristic of a substantialiser, indeed it is raw ground of the relational materialisation process. But difference ceases to be difference if it is continually different. Difference which continually exploits its difference eventually becomes similarity. And similarity is the antithesis of relational materialisation. Exposed to continual similarity the subject dematerialises. Now this is the paradox. For difference to sustain the relational materialisation process it must be combined with something that will allow it to continue to be difference over an extended period without lapsing into similarity. Similarity in conjunction with difference allows difference to remain different over an extended period of time. On its own similarity is similarity and acts to de-materialise the subject. On its own difference, by nature of its perpetuating difference, becomes similarity, and so it too results in the dematerialisation of the subject. However, difference combined with similarity is in effect a dynamic mechanism of contrariety that allows the relational materialisation process to operate indefinitely.  Similarity invigorates difference with difference so as to perpetuate its relational materialisation potential. Difference on its own is still the basis of the relational materialisation process, but only for a finite time. After a given period it becomes similarity. So a substantialiser which can manifest both similarity and difference with the subject will be the most effective in ensuring that it is continually relationally materialised.

B&N p.736 And there we have it. Satre writes "one [makes] an object in order to enter into a certain relationship with it."

B&N p.739 "There is a moment of dissolution which passes from the object to the arriving subject. The known is transformed into me."  The known in fact helps to constitute the subject.

B&N p.739 "...the for-itself dreams of an object which may be entirely assimilated by me, which would be me." Not quite. The subject yearns for a substantialiser that is it and yet not it. A substantialiser which is similar to itself and yet still different. This explains sexuality as well as aesthetics.

B&N p.747 "This ontology teaches us that desire is originally desire of being and that it is characterised as the free lack of being. But it teaches us also that desire is a relation with a concrete existant in the midst of the world and that this existant is conserved as a type of in-itself."

B&N p.750 "the bond of possession is an internal bond of being."

B&N p.751 "...the internal relation of the for-itself to the in-itself, which is ownership, derives its origin from the insufficiency of being in the for-itself."

B&N p.751 "The desire to have is at bottom reducible to the desire to be related to a certain object in a certain relation of being."

B&N p.753 "To have is to create." I would so to have if to be created.

B&N p.754 "This to the extent that I appear to myself as creating objects by the sole relation of appropriation, these objects are myself. The pen and the paper, one's clothing, the desk, the house - are myself. The totality of my possessions reflects the totality of my being. I am what I have." Where Satre feels that I am what I have due to the fact that I create the object through appropriation, thereby colouring the object with my subjective lime, I believe that I am what I have because those objects which are in my possession are a part of the contrastive matrix that relationally materialises my subjectivity.

My position is something of a reversal of Satre's. While I do help to institute objects by my presence within the contrastive matrix that relationally materialises all existence, the object-as-substantiation has far more effect in creating me through its materialisation potential.

B&N p.755 "without it (the object possessed) I am a nothingness which possesses."

To give a gift is to give someone the means by which they come into existence.

Satre's got it the wrong way round. I do not create the world, the world creates me. (admittedly I also create the world, but my relation to the world is proportional for smaller than the world's creation of me).

B&N p.763 "it is impossible to find a desire to be which is not accompanied by a desire to have, and conversely." Satre is right but not in the way he thinks he is.

Difference needs similarity to avoid being similarity. The paradox of difference.

B&N p.786 "consciousness does not have by itself any sufficiency of being as an absolute subjectivity, from the start it refers to the thing."

The relational materialisation process has a sound. It is the purr of the car and the pleasure moan of the lover. The process of de-materialisation also has a sound. It is the cry of anguish and the scream of pain.

In a sense art is knowledge as it is essentially the universe presenting itself to itself to know itself.

The universal self reflexivity of subjectivity.

B&N p.790 "we have shown in fact that the in-itself and the for-itself are not juxtaposed. Quite the contrary, the for-itself without the in-itself is a kind of abstraction, it could not exist any more than a colour could exist without form, a sound without pitch and without timbre."

Knowledge is the means by which the universe brings itself into existence.

The present has no ontological essence of its own. It is only a manifestation of the relation between the past and the future. In this sense it is a contrastive juncture of non-substantiality of nothingness. However, the past itself can only ever be perceived from within the present. The past then stems from the present, has its foundations in it. And so it too is nothingness. The same is true of the future. So the nothingness of the present (which of course contains everything) is a manifestation of the relation between the past-as-nothingness and future-as-nothingness. Time is therefore a circularity of nothingness that self-perpetuates its own existence through a movement of contrastive differentials. Time, like the universe generally, is nothing more than a dog, that is chasing its tail with such fervor that it has become airborne.

A point of classification. Why are the past and future deemed nothingness simply due to their foundation in the present? Is this nothing more than association? No. The past and future can only be perceived by consciousness from the present. They have no existence otherwise. A reality without consciousness is a static present without recourse to past or future. And once past and future have closed, so does the contrastive juncture which perpetuates the movement of the present, so the present disappears. And once the present disappear, so does the totality of existence. So it seems as if consciousness perpetuates the world. Originality of thought should always calculate its own cliche. That will teach me for thinking as I write.

So the present results from the contrast between past and future, and the past and the future are in turn founded in the present. The present has no existence but through relation, by being a contrastive juncture. The past and the future have no existence but for the consciousness of them in their present. So present consciousness constitutes the future and the past which in turn relationally materialise the present. Time is therefore a self perpetuating  circularity which relationally materialises its own existence.

Consciousness is key here. It is consciousness of past and future in the present that gives them their existence. And once they have their existence as nothingness they can contrast to relationally materialise the present. But consciousness only exists in the present. And so goes the circularity of time. But is this how consciousness itself only exists as a contrastive juncture which is materialised in relation to the world. Another self perpetuating circularity of existence - another dog chasing its tail with such fervor that it becomes airborne. So consciousness is the mechanism that combines the self perpetuating circularity of time and the self perpetuating circularity of space.

That's it! Consciousness is a contrastive juncture which is materialised in relation to space and time. Time self perpetuates its own existence, space self perpetuates its own existence, and at the contrastive juncture appears consciousness. Space and time contrast to produce consciousness, which in turn only have their existence through consciousness. This is nothing more than Kant's doctrine of repricocity. The universe brings itself into existence in relation to itself.

All this is very rough, though the fundamental concepts are there.

Existence is a self perpetuating circularity of contrastive differentials.

The subject as perceiving comes into existence through the relational materialisation process. The object, in being perceived, also comes into existence through the same process. Kant's reciprocity thesis.

I have anticipated Satre 50 years after the writing of Being and Nothingness.

Rudiger Satronski Martin Heidegger. Between Good and Evil p.37 Describes civilisation as 'the exchanging animal'

One cannot write with verisimilitude with hope in one's mind. Hate is the dirt which obscures the philosophical mirror. Hence last night's failure.

RS p.44-55 Heidegger on the nothing

Substitute difference to heterogeneity. Heterogeneity's the marrow of life.

RS p.62 "Being can always only appear as some being, as a definite something, as one put this one is one body in contrast to something different."

A world which ceases to know itself goes out of existence.

Relational materialisation brings context to the for. This is indeed what Wittgenstein saw.

Culture is humanities mechanism of self creation. Subjectivity is brought into existence in relation to cultural production.

A fundamental problem of the relational materialisation process hypothesis. How does non-consciousness bring consciousness into existence? Subjectivity is brought into existence through its relation with the world. How is this possible? We must not forget that the world is brought into existence through its relation to subjectivity. So consciousness brings non-consciousness into existence and non-consciousness brings consciousness into existence. They relationally materialise each other.

The question of the arising of consciousness from non-consciousness. How did life arise from the planet originally? How did consciousness arise from a non-conscious planet? We either ascribe to universal consciousness (i.e. that the world is a form of consciousness) or that consciousness is non existent and all there is non-consciousness (obviously false) or that consciousness is some form of miracle. Many eastern religions subscribe to the first view, many western religions subscribe to the last, and the second is held by proxy by epiphenominalists and materialists.

I think it's time to take stock of a number of concepts I am using interchangeably: subjectivity/being/consciousness/mind. I will have to sort out the differences and similarities between them.

So we have the options of universal consciousness, the denial of consciousness or the miracle of consciousness. If the totality of the universe is consciousness, then the arising of human consciousness is not so much of a mystery. If we deny consciousness, then there is nothing to explain anyway. If we adopt the miracle view we are forced into a religious position. But of course isn't this a reworking of the mind-body problem?

The problem of duality can be solved by positing either one of two monisms or retreating to a religious explanation. This of course is one of the biggest questions in philosophy.

Is consciousness simply a complexity of non-consciousness? This leads to the materialist monism.

We have somehow to break down the distinction between consciousness and non-consciousness without simply lapsing into a monism.

But I have consciousness and the tree does not. This much is clear.

Consciousness is a concentrated form of non consciousness that has been made conscious by the perception of its non-consciousness by consciousness.

Consciousness is a concentrated form of non consciousness. A non consciousness that has been made consciousness by its perception by consciousness.

Non consciousness concentrates itself to form consciousness (this has been explained already). Consciousness then perceives that non consciousness and in doing so reconstitutes it as consciousness. Hence consciousness is non consciousness and non consciousness is consciousness. The relationally materialise each other in a self perpetuating circularity of universal self reflexivity.

Some of the claims made here need classification.

In particular consciousness' reconstitution of non consciousness as consciousness. In perceiving itself the universe comes into existence. Consciousness is reconstituted as non consciousness and non consciousness is reconstituted as consciousness.

These last two nights work have really pushed me. I've gotten away from myself. Back to basics. Don't try to explain everything just yet.

The constituent substantialisers of my materialisation field will be dependent upon my materialisation range. The materialisation range governs the contrastive magnitudes of the substantialisers suitable to effect a relational materialisation. It dictates which substantialisers may be included within my materialisation field in order for the relational materialisation process to constitute subjectivity. The contrastive magnitude determines the size of the differential instantiated between the substantialiser and the subject. The greater the differential while still falling within the materialisation range, the greater the effectiveness of the relational materialisation. Once the magnitude of the substantialiser has become great enough to cause the contrastive differential to fall outside the materialisation range, the subject begins to de-materialise. It is the contrastive differential that must fall with the materialisation range, while the contrastive magnitude of the substantialiser determines the size of the contrastive differential.

Nascent.

Nothingness contrasts to form the world. The world contrasts to form a subjectivity. However the world which is produced from the contrast of nothingness is only world-as-potential. The world only becomes actual once it is perceived by itself through the subjectivity which it has contrastively produced. So subjectivity perceives the world in order to actualise its potentiality. So the world contrasts to produce subjectivity and subjectivity perceives the world in order to actualise (produce) it. Perception is the actualisation of the potentiality that is the world as manifest between the contrast between nothingness and nothingness. This again is a self perpetuating circularity of universal self reflexivity.

RS. p.298 "It is this world creating aspect and hence the special potency of art that matters to him (Heidegger) most."

The materialisation range expresses the depth of the subject's being. An animal has a smaller materialisation range than a human being.

The greater the materialisation range, the further from the ground of nothingness the subject is, and the more effective the materialisation is assumes. The greater the ontological density, the more acute the contrastive concentration of being. The closer to the culmination of somethingness. Of course this is only a potential. It is still up to the subject to constitute the materialisation field to fully actualise this potential.

Psychology is a dynamic between the subject and its materialisation field. As is economics, sociology and aesthetics. This of course needs elaboration.

The materialisation range is the potential for the subject's projection towards ontological density or concentration. The move away from nothingness to somethingness.

Thesis title: Relational Materialisation: The ontology of contrastive differentials.

The story of the progression from nothingness to world to subjectivity to nothingness again is not a linear teleological one. It is rather a movement of similarity. Nothing is antecedent in the self perpetuating circularity of universal self reflexivity.

Time is real. However it is a movement from nowhere to nowhere. The future is only ever projected through consciousness. The past is only ever remembered through consciousness. Hence the past and the future are ideal. This does not lead to a conception of time as ideal. Time is real. It is a movement without an origin nor a destination. It is simply pure movement.

The present is however a contrastive juncture between the past and the future which are themselves nothingness actualised through consciousness of them.

Does this make the present ideal as well?

Space and time are mechanisms of contrast. Time allows change, which is the seat of heterogeneity. Space is the medium upon which change through time operates.

Here is a paradox. Past and present only exist in the mind. They are ideal. The present however is real. But the present is a contrastive juncture between the past and the future that itself maintains no ontological density. So if the present is dependent upon the contrast between past and future, and the past and the future are dependent upon the mind, is not the present by default dependent upon the mind? I am forced to answer yes. But then I have to admit of the identity of the present, and the next step is the identity of the world. Something indeed to be avoided.

Without time there is no movement. Without movement there is no change. Without change there can be no heterogeneity. Without heterogeneity there can be no existence

RS p.393 "Can we exist without works of art at all?" No.

Philosophy should attempt to describe no less than everything.

Being and Time p.36 "The kind of being which belongs to Dasein is rather such that, in understanding its own being, it has a tendency to do so in terms of that entity towards which it composes itself proximally and in a way which is essentially constant in terms of the 'world'"

B&T p.61 "Because phenomena, as understood phenomenologically, are never anything but what goes to make up being, while being is in every case the being of some entity, we must bring forward the entities themselves if it is our aim that being should be laid bare."

Subjectivity is a universal hermeneutic.

B&T p.65 "[the] fundamental structure of Dasein: Being-in-the-world."

B&T p.73 "The person is so thing like and substantial Being."

B&T p.84 "Because Being-in-the-world belongs essentially to Dasein, its being towards the world is essentially concern."

BT p.84 "Taking up relationships towards the world is possible only because Dasein is Being-in-the-world, is as it is."

B&T p.86 "For what is more obvious than that a 'subject' is related to an object, and vice versa."

B&T p.86 Being in the world and its relation to knowledge.

Possible reformulation: Contrastive materialisation: The Relational Nascency of Subjectivity.

B&T p.97 "Taken strictly, there is no such thing as an equipment. To the being of any equipment there always belongs a totality of equipment."

B&T p.97 "Equipment in accordance with its equipmentality always is in terms of its belonging to other equipment."

Relational materialisation: The contrastive nascency of subjectivity (being?)

B&T p.102 "Dasein is ontically constituted by being-in-the-world."

B&T p.107 "assignments and referential totalities could in some sense become constitutive for worldhood itself."

B&T p.121 "The context of assignment or references, which, as significance, is constitutive for worldhood, can be taken formally in the sense of a system of relations."

B&T p.122 "This 'system of Relations', as something constitutive for worldhood, is so far from volatizing the being of the read-to-had within-the-world, that the worldhood of the world provides the basis on which such entities can for the first time be discovered as they are substantially in themselves." In other worlds, language substantialises the world.

Subjectivity is a second order contrast. Nothingness contrasts to form the world. The world then contrasts to form subjectivity. So when a substantialiser is removed from the materialisation field i.e. when a part of the world is removed, qua-relation, from the subject's materialisation field, the subject glimpses the nothingness which founds the world.

This nothingness which founds the world founds subjectivity. When the world is removed from subjectivity, nothingness becomes manifest.

Second circle contrastive juncture. Subjectivity.

B&T p.125 "That whose being is such that it has no need at all for any other entity satisfies the idea of substance in the authentic sense." Subjectivity is therefore not substantial.

To read: Gilles Deleuze, Difference and Repetition.

A contrastive juncture can manifest hardness just as it can colour, sound and subjectivity. Colour, hardness and sound are first order contrastive junctures. Subjectivity is a second circle contrastive juncture.

A chair is not hard until it has been sat on. Before hard it maintains a potentiality of hardness.

B&T p. 140 "In Dasein there lies an essential tendency towards closeness." Heidegger's concept of de-severance is important here. The subject must constitute its materialisation field in order to come into existence. It must de-sever the world to perpetuate its existence.

The anti-substantialiser can be a person within the subject's materialisation field that, while being effective as a material (physical) substantialiser, is in fact destabilizing the subject's mental substantialisers. The anti-substantialiser may have become entrenched within the subject's materialisation field through habituation, but has through the course of time come to be disruptive to the mental materialisation field. Also a substantialiser can oscillate between its anti substantialisation potentials and its substantialising ones. The antis substantialiser can also be a non aesthetically pleasing object such as a pool of vomit. This role of the anti substantialiser has to be fleshed out.

An anti-substantialiser is one that is effective on the corporeal plane of materialisation and yet disruptive on the mental or vice versa. The first is a troublesome borer and the second is a cigarette.

I seem to be establishing a Cartesian dualism here.

A substantialiser can be inclusive within the materialisation field and yet be de-materialising the subject though the destabilisation of the mental plane of materialisation.

How to explain the arisal of the mental plane when subjectivity is relationally materialised according to a world/world matrix. Mentality arises when the contrastive complexity of the world/world contrastive juncture is supplemented by the inclusion of the nothingness/nothingness contrastive influence.  So there exists subjectivity resulting from a world/world contrastive juncture (which is the corporeal place of materialisation) and subjectivity resulting from the world/world/nothingness/nothingness contrastive juncture and this is the mental plane of materialisation. So sunburn is a result of the de-materialisation of the subject on the corporeal plane of materialisation, and psychosis is the de-materialisation of the subject on the mental plane of materialisation.

In the first case the anti-substantialiser is high UV sunlight in the second perhaps the removal of important substantialisers from the materialisation field.

With such a conception we are left with all the problems of Cartesian dualism.

Objectivity is a result of a nothingness/nothingness contrast. Subjectivity is a result of a nothingness/nothingness - world/world contrast.

The nothingness/nothingness contrast brings forth only corporeality. It requires the inclusion of the world/world contrast to constitute mentality. The inclusion of the world/world contrast is a universal move toward self reflexivity. Nothingness is attempting to see itself and so it contrasts to produce world, and then the world contrasts to produce subjectivity. And subjectivity perceives the world. The final step in the evaluation of the universe occurs when subjectivity can perceive the contrasting nothingness that lies behind the world. The universal subjectivity is complete. So in attempting to see itself though a second order self reflexivity (subjectivity) it has in fact obscured itself. In contrasting to create world, in order to produce subjectivity, nothingness has obscured its own nothingness behind world. Subjectivity is searching for nothingness in the world. But it has forgotten that it is itself constituted by nothingness in the first tier of its constitution. So only introspection will allow nothingness to perceive itself.

Nothingness contrasts to produce world. World contrasts to produce the corporeal vessel of subjectivity. By itself this corporeal vessel is simply a husk. The husk is filled by contrasting nothingness.  This is consciousness, the contrasting nothingness that emerges from the universal matrix of nothingness to fill the corporeal vessel of subjectivity that has formed though the world/world contrast. So why isn't the world the consciousness? Because it too is fundamentally a contrasting nothingness.

What is the difference between the contrasting nothingness that produces the world and the contrasting nothingness that constitutes the corporeal vessel of subjectivity that forms from the world/world contrast?

Has it something to do with self reflexivity.

Consciousness is the foundation of the world, but not as the philosophers think. The world is not consciousness through projection, but through foundation.

Consciousness is contrasting nothingness that has been given the opportunity to perceive itself.

Consciousness is a self reflexive contrasting nothingness.

Why does the nothing/nothing contrast only produce non-conscious corporeality on the first tier and mentality on the second tier?

For the relational materialisation process to function it must function through heterogeneity. If consciousness (nothingness) attempted simply to relationally materialise itself only in relation to its own consciousness (nothingness) then it would of course be a homogenous relation, and there could be no contrastive differential through which the relational materialisation process could build the edifice (subjectivity) through which universal self reflexivity could occur.

So the question is not who does consciousness arise? For as the nothingness that founds existence is all pervasive, the question is rather how does non-consciousness arise?

I would say that the pure nothingness-consciousness that pre-dates existence is a state of suchness that maintains no duality whatsoever.

No.

How does non-consciousness arise from a fundamental nothingness/consciousness?

Do we stop asking why here?

The nothingness/nothingness contrastive matrix is self perpetuating. It has always been and always will be, from the standpoint of temporality.

Is time the key?

If consciousness is a contrastive nothingness then for there to be consciousness there must be a world. What happens after death then? A return to non-contrastive nothingness? Non contrastive nothingness is neither consciousness nor non-consciousness. If it was either it would still be contrastive by the very nature of linguistic duality.

Is consciousness then a world/nothingness contrast? If so it is really a nothingness/nothingness/nothingness contrast.

So this is a Kantian reciprocity thesis.

This nothingness/nothingness nothingness contrast is:

How does the first contrast between nothingness and nothingness come about?

It is nothing perceiving itself. The self reflexivity of nothingness.

So what provides the contrastive differential?

And how does the self reflexivity of nothingness produce the world. Because the world is produced through a contrast between nothingness and nothingness.

Nothingness contrasts with nothingness to produce world. World contrasts with nothingness to produce consciousness. (subjectivity) consciousness perceives world.

Nothingness (subjectivity) contrasts with nothingness (objective) to produce world (objective). World (objective) contrasts nothingness (subjective) to produce consciousness.

The first contrast between nothingness and nothingness is simply the spatialising of nothingness.

World contrasts with world to produce nothingness.

Something always materialises at a contrastive juncture. The body manifests also a world/world juncture. Consciousness manifests at a world/nothingness juncture. Colour manifests at a nothingness/nothingness juncture.

Nothingness/nothingness juncture gives rise to colour, sound, solidity.

The world/world juncture gives rise to the body.

The world/nothingness juncture gives rise to consciousness.

If we break down the world/nothingness juncture we have a nothingness/nothingness/nothingness juncture. So consciousness is nothingness contrasting with nothingness contrasting with nothingness. This is a contrastive self reflexivity.

Colour is to the world as emotion is to consciousness. Colour is a symptom of the contrast between nothingness and nothingness that produces world. Emotion is a symptom of the contrast between world and nothingness. The contrast between world and nothingness is the culmination of the universal self reflexivity of nothingness that is the impeteus for the self perpetuating circularity of existence.

Subjectivity is a temporalised world/world contrastive juncture. The subjects movement through time allows a contrastive juncture to form within a materialisation field that is focused.  At any one time the subject may only have one primary substantialiser within the materialisation field, which does not provide the ground for juncture.  It is through the course of time that the multiplicity of substantialisers can form a juncture.

While the subject may be surrounded by numerous substantialisers at any given time, the materialisation field is a focus. This focus can be narrowed or broadened.

The world/world contrast is the second tier of a juncture that incorporates the nothingness/nothingness juncture that grounds world. While the world becomes manifest through a nothingness/nothingness contrast, that nothingness does not upsurge within it. In the case of subjectivity the nothingness contrast has upsurged within the ontological parameters that have been created through the world contrast. So nothingness is manifest in subjectivity but not in world. Nothingness has behind world but does not manifest within it.

This still needs work.

Look into the Kantian reciprocity thesis to really flesh out the relational materialisation hypothesis.

RESEARCH PARAMETERS: Satre, Kant, Heidegger, Hegel.

B&T p.149 "Proximally and for the most part Dasein is formulated within its world."

B&T p.152 "In clarifying Being-in-the-world we have shown that a bare subject without a world never 'is' proximally. And so in the end an isolated "I" without others is just as far from being proximally given."

B&T p.153 "Being-in-the-world - that basic state of Dasein by which every mode of its being gets co-determined."

B&T p.155 "The world of Dasein is a with-world. Being-in is Being-with others. The being-in-themselves  within-the-world is Dasein-with."

B&T p.156 "Dasein understands itself proximally and for the most part in terms of its world; and the Dasein-with of others is often encountered in terms of what is ready-to-hand within-the-world."

B&T p.156 "Dasein in itself is essentially being-with."

B&T p.156-157 "Even Dasein's being-alone is Being-with in the world."

B&T p.180 "Being with others belongs to the Being of Dasein, which is an issue for Dasein in its very Being. Thus as Being with, Dasein 'is' essentially for the sake of others."

B&T p162 "Of course being towards others is ontologically different from being towards things which are present at hand. The entity which is 'other' has itself the same kind of Being as Dasein. In being with and towards others, there is thus a relationship of being from Dasein to Dasein."

Heidegger here takes up the homogeneity of being with others, but it is the homogeneity within the heterogeneity, with the heterogeneity being the dominant partner, that is of most importance to the relational materialisation process.

B&T p.163 "Our analysis has shown that being-with is an existential constituent of being in the world."

B&T p.163 "So far as Dasein is at all, it has Being-with-one-another as its kind of being."

B&T p.165 "Everyone is the other, and no one is himself."

B&T p.167 "The 'they' is an existentiale; and as a primordial phenomenon, it belongs to Dasein's positive constitution."

B&T p.167 "The self of everyday Dasein is the they-self."

Key terms: Relational materialisation, heterogeneity, contrastive differential, contrastive magnitude, contrastive juncture, materialisation field, materialisation range, de-materialisation, homogeneity, contrastive complexity, anti-substantialiser, substantialiser, contrastive matrix, world/world contrastive matrix, nothingness/nothingness contrastive matrix, nascence, second order contrastive juncture.

Objectivity, as potential, is actuated in relation to subjectivity.

An object must be within a subject's materialisation field to become actualised itself.

An object must maintain a proximity to a materialisation field in order to be actualised.

A materialisation field is a horizon of proximity. It is what in a Heideggerian sense, present-at-hand. An object must be proximal to the subject to be included within that subject's materialisation field.

This is not quite correct. We must distinguish between the immanent materialisation field, which is proximal to the subject, and the broader potentiality of the temporalised materialisation field. This second materialisation field is manifest immanently on the noetic or psychical materialisation plane.

While a substantialiser may be absent from the immanent materialisation field, it may still be present within the noetic materialisation field. And a substantialiser may be present within the immanent materialisation field and yet be absent from the noetic field.

The immanent field is external. The noetic field is internal.

Hylic.

Somatic - pertaining to the body.

Hylic materialisation field

Noetic materialisation field

Immanent materialisation field

Potential trans-spacio-temporal materialisation field.

Latent trans spacio-temporal materialisation field.

Bernie, being in another house, is within my latent trans spatio-temporal materialisation field and quite often within my noetic materialisation field as a result. Chris, being in the same room as me, is in my immanent materialisation field. He is also in my hylic materialisation field and being an other, is also within my poetic materialisation field. The table, being in the same room as me is within my hylic materialisation field, if I focus on it and think about if it is also within my noetic materialisation field, and it is within my immanent materialisation field.

Hylic materialisation field

Noetic materialisation field

Immanent materialisation field

Latent trans spatio-temporal materialisation field.

Latent non-immanent trans temporal materialisation field.

A knife that cuts me causes the de-materialisation on a hylic level. It has taken me outside the hylic materialisation range.

Hylic materialisation field.

Hylic materialisation range.

Noetic materialisation field

Noetic materialisation range.

Do we need this distinction between the hylic and the noetic?

Food is both a hylic and a noetic substantialiser.

The other in the sexual act is both a hylic and a noetic substantialiser.

A non-noetic object must be within an immanent materialisation field to be actualised.

Potentiality is a non-contrasting nothingness. Actuality is contrast.

Hylic materialisation field

Noetic materialisation field

Immanent materialisation field

Latent materialisation field

The latent materialisation field is temporalised.

Touch and taste are conductors of the higher materialisation field.

Sight and hearing are conductors of the noetic materialisation field.

Smell is neither of the hylic or the noetic. Animals have a highly developed sense of smell, highly developed humans do not.

The book case in the next room that accommodates subjectivity remains in a state of potential non contrastive nothingness. Once I walk into the room, it is actualised by being included within my materialisation field. This inclusion provides the nothingness/nothingness contrastive differential to relationally materialise its existence. And in the same process that book cases materialises my existence. This is Kant's doctrine of reciprocity, though it needs some work to flesh it out.

A non perceived object is in a state of potentialised non contrastive nothingness.

The world brings us into existence so that we may bring it into existence. We bring the world into existence so that it may bring us into existence. It is the self perpetuating circularity of relational materialisation effected through a universal self reflexivity.

The hylic materialisation field operates on the world/world contrastive plane, while the noetic materialisation field operates on the nothingness/nothingness contrastive plane.

That's how nothingness perceives nothingness self reflexively even though the hylic side of the equation, the perceived, is obscured nothingness. It is the stimulation of noetic sensibilities through its contact with higher substantialisers that allow nothingness to perceive nothingness. Nothingness can perceive nothingness through the human substantialiser quite obviously, for the human substantialiser is exposed nothingness.  However the hylic is obscured nothingness but it can stimulate noetic responses, and as noetic responses are a result of a nothingness/nothingness contrast, nothingness has in effect perceived nothingness.

We create the world so the world will create us so that we may perceive each other and ourselves.

We create the world - Romanticism. The world creates us - Being and Time. The world creates us and we create the world - the Critique of Pure Reason.

The self reflexive nothingness that constitutes the self perpetuation of the universe renders the subjective objective distinction untenable.

Relational materialisation is the edifice through which the universal perceives itself.

The immediate materialisation is that which is perceived by the subject.

B&T p.180-181 "Proximally and for the most part, Dasein is in terms of what it is concerned with."

B&T p.187 "The Being-possible which is essential for Dasein, pertains to the ways of its solicitude for others and of its concern with the world."

B&T p.184 "That which is ready-at-hand is discovered as such in its serviceability its usability and its determinability."

B&T p.186 "Dasein can proximally and for the most part understand itself in terms of the world."

Equiprimordial.

B&T p.202 "something is understood with regard to something."

Language is the medium of knowledge which is the means of universal self reflexivity.

B&T p.206 "Listening to...is Dasein's existential way of Being-open as being-with for others."

B&T p.210 "Proximally and for the most part Dasein is absorbed in the 'they' and is mastered by it."

B&T p.212 "Being-with-one-another takes place in talking with one another and in concern with what is said-in-the-talk."

B&T p.215 The self reflexivity of perception. "Being is that which shows itself in the sense perception which belongs to beholding and only by such seeing does being get discovered. Primordial and genuine truth lies in pure beholding."

B&T p.220 "Dasein is proximally and for the most part alongside the 'world' of its concern."

Movement is a manifest accelerated heterogeneity.

The distinction between direct causality and enhanced potential causality. Direct causality is a necessitating movement. Cause X will not necessarily cause Y regardless of context. Enhanced potential causality preserves a cause X which increase the possibility of Y given that contextual factor Z are in operation. The causation of relational materialisation is of enhanced potential causality. A substantialiser causes a greater potential for the manifestation of subjectivity though it needs a certain contrastive synchronicity in the world/world and nothingness/nothingness contrastive matrix. This enhanced potentiality actualizes once nothingness has upsurged with the world/world contrastive juncture. If the relational materialisation of the subject was only due to direct causality, then subjectivity would arise at every contrastive juncture in the world/world contrastive juncture. But if most of the junctures only pure objectivity becomes manifest. It is only within those junctures that nothingness upsurged into that the substantialiser has a direct line toward the relational materialisation of the subject. So the causality of the substantialiser in an enhanced potential causality, requiring the synchronicity or harmony of a heterogeneous assemblage of exteriority.

Relational materialisation is a contiguity of being.

Without this assemblage subjective potential remains unactualised.

The greater the contiguity between subject and other-as-substantialiser the greater the intensity of the relational materialisation.

Objectivity is a potentiality, that once actualised in relation to subjectivity, provides the relationally materialising impetus of enhance potential causality that actualises in its turn subjectivity.

Objectivity is a potentiality that enhances the potentiality of subjectivity.

Subjectivity is a conduit of nothingness.

The materialising effect of a substantialiser persists for a given period of time once it has left the materialisation field. This duration is not indefinite, for it persists as long as it takes the heterogeneity instantiated through the substantialisers materialisation effects to become homogeneity.

Once you understand what's happening to you it ceases to propel you along.

The materialisation threshold in the extent to which the subject can become actualised, it's outer limit.

A substantialiser like the sea can be a good substantialiser when another important substantialiser has been lost to the subject's materialisation feild. The materialisation intensity engendered in relation to the sea-as-substantialiser is universal because the subject has fallen under its materialisation threshold and the sea has helped bring it back into line with the threshold. Before the loss of the substantialiser, the subject was perhaps of the threshold, but once it has been lost, the sea may become a more effective substantialiser in bringing the subject closer to its materialisation threshold.

The psychology of Relational Materialisation.

As important substantialiser is lost, the subject de-materialises. The subject moves into relation to the sea, the subject begins to re-materialise. Hence the profound importance of being near the sea to a person needing to re-materialise.

To de-materialise reduces the contrastive magnitude of the subject and so increasing the effectiveness of larger contrastive magnitude substantialisers in relationally materialising the subject. (This needs work).

The materialisation range is increased as the subject de-materialises through the loss of a substantialiser.

It can also decrease, according to the subject.

The closer the subject's materialisation level is to the threshold, the more actualised the subject is, the more real it is.

The greater distance moved from the materialisation level to the threshold, the greater the intensity of the relational materialisation.

One may speak of stages of materialisation. From full actualisation to full de-materialisation (death).

The materialisation level fluctuates in accordance with the hurly burly of substantialisers within the materialisation field.

The materialisation level is different from the contrastive magnitude, though it can influence its fluctuation.

One may classify the stages of materialisation though a study of psychology.

Contentment is a good indicator of the level of materialisation (or the stage of materialisation).

The materialisation range determines the contrastive magnitude's of those substantialisers that can effectively materialise the subject.

I must distinguish between the materialisation range/contrastive magnitude dynamic and the materialisation threshold/materialisation level dynamic.

Depression is a symptom of a low materialisation level.

Its not just the commerce of substantialisers in and out of the materialisation field that determines the materialisation level, but also the state of the materialisation range. A very small range will limit the effectiveness of substantialisers within the materialisation field. The materialisation range determines the effectiveness of the subject toward materialisation.

The hedonist is on the right track, though he lapses into homogeneity through repeated exposure to substantialisers.

The task of materialisation therapy is to broaden the subject's materialisation range.

The broader the materialisation range the greater the possibility of the subject of achieving the materialisation threshold.

The relationship between substantialisers within the materialisation field can effect the contrastive magnitude.

B&T p.236-237 "Dasein's tactical existing is not only generally and without further differentiation a thrown potentiality-for-being-in-the-world, it is always also absorbed in the world of it's concern."

B&T p.240 "...the urge 'to live' is something 'towards' which one is impelled..."

B&T p.243 " 'Being-in-the-world' has the stamp of 'care', which accords with its being."

B&T p.253 "...knowing is a relationship of being." (Scheller)

B&T p.261 "Being-true as Being-uncovering, is in turn ontologically possible only on the basis of Being-in-the-world. This latter phenomenon which we have known as a basic state of Dasein is the foundation for the primordial phenomenon of truth."

B&T p.263 "Uncovering (truth) is a way of Being for Being-in-the-world."

B&T p.260 "On earlier analysis of the worldhood of the world and of entities within-the-world is grounded in the world's disclosedness. But disclosedness is that basic character of Dasein according to when it is its 'there' ".

B&T p. 264 "As something that understands, Dasein can understand itself in terms of its ownmost potentiality-for-being." I would say that Dasein's potentiality-for-being is engendered in relation to the world as to the other.

B&T p.265 "...truth, in the most primordial sense, is Dasein's disclosedness, to which the uncoveredness of entities within-the-world belongs..."

B&T "Our Being alongside entities within-the-world is concern, and this is Being which uncovers.  To Dasein, disclosedness, however, discourse belongs essentially. Dasein expresses itself: it expresses itself as a Being-toward-entities - a Being toward which uncovers."  The self reflexivity of contrastive nothingness.

B&T p.267 "When the assertion has been expressed, the uncoveredness of the entity moves into the kind of Being of that which is ready-to-hand within-the-world. But now to the extent that in this uncoveredness as an uncoveredness of something, a relationship to something present-at-hand exists, the uncoveredness (truth) becomes, for its part, a relationship between things which are present at hand - a relationship that is present-at-hand itself."

B&T p.268 "Dasein, in its concernful absorption, understands itself in terms of what it encounters within-the-world."

B&T p.269 " 'There is' truth only insofar as Dasein is and so long as Dasein is."

B&T p.275 "We have defined the idea of existence as a potential-for-Being - a potentiality which understands and for which its own Being is an issue."

B&T p.276 "We have indeed contended that care is the totality of the structured whole of Dasein's constitution."

B&T p.276-277 "The 'end' of Being-in-the-world is death."

B&T p.283 "representability is not only quite possible but is even distinctive for our being with one another." The noetic aspects of the other as substantialiser.

B&T p.283 "The ontological signification of the expression 'come' has been expressed in the 'definition': "ahead-of-itself-Being-already-in(the world) as Being alongside entities which we encounter (within-the-world)."

B&T p.294 "Death reveals itself as ...non-relational..."

B&T p.295 "Anxiety in the face of death is anxiety 'in the face' that potentiality-for-being, which is one's ownmost, non-relational, and not to be outstripped."

B&T p.308 "The non-relational character of Death, as understood in anticipation, individualises Dasein down to itself."

B&T p.310 "Dasein finds itself face to face with the 'nothing' of the possible impossibility of its existence."

Life is the continual coming into degrees of existence (materialisation).

B&T p.345 The lostness in the 'they'.

To being to de-materialise on the noetic plane can induce de-materialisation on the hylic plane (body).

B&T p.362 "We have indeed already shown, in analysing the structure of understanding in general, that what gets censured inappropriately as a 'circle' belongs to the essence and to the distinctive character of understanding as such."

B&T p.364 "We have given an existential formula for the structure of care as 'ahead-of-itself-Being-already-in (a world) as being-alongside (entities encountered within-the-world.)"

B&T p.369 "Being-already-in-a-world, however, as Being-alongside the ready-to-hand-within-the-world, means equiprimordially that one is ahead of oneself."

B&T p.369 "With 'I', care expresses itself through proximally and for the most part in the 'figurative' way in which the 'I' talks when in concerns itself with something."

Ethical transgressions are the denying of a particular subject the means by which it comes into existence both on the hylic plane and only the noetic.

If you do not deny a subject its means towards existence, you have not transgressed ethically.

Some have forgotten why they are coming into existence and are doing so just for the sake of it.

Technology has created a plethora of new means by which the subject can come into existence.

Substantialisers are themselves materialised in relation to other substantialisers and perhaps more importantly to the subject-as-other.

Ethical transgression is the denying of the means towards materialisation.

Ethics is the securing of the means towards materialisation.

Death through old age is the triumph of homogeneity.

Ethics is the maintenance of the means towards materialisation.

The materialisation range is cocentric. Substantialisers of a particular contrastive magnitude fall on the outer limits of the range, and while they still relationally materialise the subject, they do so with a lesser intensity. Other substantialisers of a more felicitous contrastive magnitude fall closer to the centre of subject's materialisation range. These substantialisers are the more effective in materialising the subject.

Or, the closer a substantialiser's contrastive magnitude to the outer higher limit of the materialisation range the more effective the materialisation.

The cocentric materialisation range paradigm:

The closer to the centre of the circle, the closer to the epicentre of the materialisation range a substantialiser's contrastive magnitude, the more effective the materialisation.

The greater the number of substantialisers within the materialisation field that maintain a contrastive magnitude that falls within the epicentre of the materialisation range, the closer to the materialisation threshold the subject will be.

If a substantialiser of a contrastive magnitude that falls outside the materialisation range enters into the materialisation field, the de-materialisation of the subject results.

Rather than speak of a substantialiser or a contrastive magnitude greater than the materialisation range, speak of a contrastive magnitude that falls outside the range.

The contrastive magnitude of a substantialiser varies according to the contrastive magnitude of the subject towards which it is in relation. This explains why a work of art is a substantialiser within a large contrastive magnitude for me and small magnitude for others.

Rather than speak of contrastive magnitude, maybe contrastive centricity.

Contrastive centricity is relational to the materialisation range of individual subjects.

Contrastive centricity is still a magnitude. It is magnitude taken subjectively and relationally.

A has a greater contrastive centricity than B and C.  However, C has fallen outside the materialisation range and is therefore de-materialising the subject. B is materialising the subject, though far less effectively than A.

C will typically have a very high contrastive magnitude. A will typically have a higher contrastive magnitude than B, but not so high as C. For a substantialiser to maintain full contrastive centricity it must have a high enough contrastive magnitude to intensely materialise the subject, but not so high as to de-materialise it.

Contrastive centricity is the contrastive magnitude of the substantialiser considered in relation to the subject's materialisation range.

Talk of the centricity of the substantialisers contrastive magnitude within the materialisation range.

The contrastive magnitude determines the differential between the substantialiser and the subject, and hence the intensity of the materialisation.

Distinguish between contrastive magnitude and range centricity. The magnitude remains constant for a substantialiser and is objective.  The range centricity of this magnitude is subjective and determined in relation to the particular subject's materialisation range. So a substantialiser may have a high contrastive magnitude, but have a low range centricity, and so be a less effective substantialiser. The contrastive magnitude of the substantialiser must have range centrality to be an effective substantialiser.

The contrastive magnitude of the substantialiser is the 'in-itself'. This magnitude must have a certain range centrality to be an effective substantialiser.

Does a substantialiser have an intrinsic contrastive magnitude, or is that magnitude only manifest in relation to the subject?

A substantialiser has a contrastive magnitude, but that magnitude is not the same for every subject. Art has high contrastive magnitude for me, but not for others. Why is this?

Is contrastive magnitude in-itself or conditioned by the for-itself?

Is contrastive magnitude determined by range centrality?

Range centrality is the measure of the facility of a contrastive magnitude to relationally materialise the subject.

The larger the contrastive magnitude outside still maintaining range centrality, the more effective the materialisation.

Art has a magnitude that is range central for me and range peripheral for others.

Contrastive magnitude is conditioned by range centrality.

A substantialiser has a potential contrastive magnitude that must be filtered through an examination via range centrality to have its actualised contrastive magnitude bestowed upon it, so that it can then create the contrastive differential through which the subject is relationally materialised and through which the materialisation range is also brought into existence.

The distinction between potential contrastive magnitude and actual contrastive magnitude is key here.

So contrastive magnitude is not objective or subjective but arises as a result of the dynamic between the objective-as-potential and the subjective that actualises objectivity.

So it is the contrastive magnitude that destabilises the strict dichotomy of subject/object.

The explanation of the arising of a contrastive magnitude ties into the circularity of universal self reflexivity.

If the contrastive magnitude is range central then the differential between the substantialiser and the subject is great enough to engender a materialisation. It is the size of the differential that determines the intensity of the materialisation.

So the contrastive magnitude of a substantialiser falls within the subject's materialisation range, and according to its centrality within the range, a contrastive differential is established.  It is then the size of this differential that determines the intensity of the materialisation.

Range centrality is the relation of the contrastive magnitude of the substantialiser and the contrastive magnitude of the subject (as nothingness).

I have to rework the range centrality paradigm, to perhaps range saturation paradigm. So the closer the contrastive magnitude of the substantialiser to the range saturation point, the great the contrastive differential and the greater the intensity of the materialisation.

A substantialiser with a contrastive magnitude of n would be of minimal effectiveness in materialising the subject. A substantialiser with a contrastive magnitude of n+1 would be a little more effective. A magnitude of n+2 even more so. A magnitude of n+3 is the greatest magnitude that can relationally materialise the subject and provides the most intensive materialisation. A magnitude of n+4 engenders a contrastive differential which is too steep to affect a materialisation and in fact causes a de-materialisation.

The closer the contrastive magnitude of a substantialiser is to the saturation point of the materialisation range (without going beyond it), the more felicitous the contrastive differential with the subject is, and the more intense the materialisation contrastive magnitude is determined by the saturation proximity of the potential contrastive magnitude of the substantialiser.

B&T p.403 "We have called concernful Being alongside the 'world' our 'dealings in and with the environment'. As phenomenon which are examples of Being alongside, we have chosen the using manipulation and providing of the ready-to-hand, and the different and undifferentiated modes of them, that is we have chosen ways of being alongside what belongs to one's everyday needs. In this land of concern Dasein authentic existence too maintains itself..."

B&T p.422 "'Proximally' signifies the way in which Dasein is 'manifest' in the 'with-one-another' of Publicness."

B&T p.423 "...temporality is made possible by Dasein's Being."

B&T p.435 "As thrown, Dasein has indeed been delivered over to-itself and to its potential-for-being, but as being-in-the-world. As thrown, it has been submitted to a 'world' and exists factically with others. Proximally and for the most part the self is lost in the 'they'."

B&T p.439 "Proximally and for the most part, Dasein understands itself in terms of that which it encounters in the environment and that which it is circumspectively concerned. This understanding is not just a care taking cognizance it itself, such as encompasses all Dasein's ways of Behaving. Understanding signifies one's projecting oneself upon one's current possibility of Being-in-the-world, that is to say it signifies existing as this possibility.  This understanding as common sense constitutes even the inauthentic existence of the 'they'."

A substantialiser may have a large contrastive magnitude, but if that magnitude is only marginally greater than the magnitude of the subjective nothingness, then the contrastive differential engendered through its relation the subject might be quite small. A small contrastive differential manifests itself in a lower intensity of materialisation (and subsequently lower levels of pleasure).

The subject's contrastive magnitude is engendered through the relationship between its nothingness as potential and its temporalised materialisation field.  The materialisation field is the contrastive impetus that continually re-materialises the subject in the face of its own nothingness.

So the contrastive magnitude of the substantialiser is the in-itself of that substantialiser.  The contrastive differential is the relation between the in-itself and the for-itself.  The nothingness as potential of the subject is the for-itself.

The contrastive differential is determined by the saturation point proximity of the substantialisers contrastive magnitude within the materialisation range.

Rather than talking of a large contrastive magnitude, talk of a saturation proximal magnitude. This emphasises that a substantialiser only has a magnitude in relation to the subject.  A close saturation proximity magnitude will be large by virtue of being saturation proximal, and for this reason only, not because of any inherent largeness of the substantialisers contrastive magnitude. There is therefore no in-itself quality of contrastive magnitude.

So the contrastive magnitude of the substantialiser is relational to the subject.

I am fluctuating between the in-itself magnitude paradigm and the for-itself relational magnitude paradigm.

So the work of art I am looking at has a saturation proximal contrastive magnitude. Therefore, in relation to me its contrastive magnitude is large, and so the contrastive differential it instantiates between me and itself is large, and so the intensity of materialisation is large, and consequently the pleasure I experience in observing it is great.

Does the largeness of the contrastive magnitude come before or after the relational materialisation.

The problem in arising is how I set up the materialisation range.

Is this problem solved by making the materialisation range a measure of the longness of the contrastive differential rather than of the contrastive magnitude.

No.

Within a contrastive magnitude the saturation proximity is determined by whether the contrastive differential engendered between the substantialiser and the subject allows the subject to approach its materialisation threshold.

Mood is a symptom of the contrastive magnitude of the subject.

Does the materialisation level effect the contrastive magnitude of the subject?

Art has a high contrastive magnitude. If I enjoy art, my contrastive magnitude must be small in relation to art, and so the differential is large and hence the materialisation more intense.

Is my contrastive magnitude relative to the substantialiser?

Art has high contrastive magnitude, and I like art, so my contrastive magnitude in relation to art is small. I am indifferent to model trains, model trains have a low contrastive magnitude so my contrastive magnitude in relation to trains must be small (little differential).

I need to characterise the dynamic between the contrastive magnitude of the substantialiser and the contrastive magnitude of subject. Do they influence each other or are they stable?

For me the differential between me and art is greater than that between me and football, although football is still within my materialisation range.  For Michael, football provides greater differential than art.

I must distinguish between substantialisers that are within...

The only problem with the preceding position is that both Michael and I don't like modern art. So by the previous picture it must have two contrastive magnitudes.

Is the contrastive magnitude of the substantialiser relative to the subject?

B&T p.481 "Space is the unmediated indifference of Nature's Being outside of itself."

B&T p.483 "Heidegger quoting Hegel.  "Thus in a positive sense one can say of time that only the present it, the 'before' and the 'after' are not; but the concrete present is the result of the past and is pregnant with the future." Hegel, encyklopadie section 259

B&T p.484 "The I is universality but is individuality just as undeniably."

Every sense has its own materialisation range and contrastive magnitude.

The contrastive magnitude of a substantialiser determines its saturation proximity within the subject's materialisation range. This proximity in turn determines the substantialiser's contrastive magnitude.

The subject conditions the contrastive magnitude of the substantialiser because the subject is a constituent of the contrastive matrix that provides the ground of the possibility of that substantialiser.

Contrastive magnitude is relative to the constitution of the proximal contrastive matrix.

Does the substantialiser condition the contrastive magnitude of the subject or does the subject condition the contrastive magnitude of the substantialiser?

If the magnitude of the object changes in relation to the subject then an object that is being perceived by two people has two magnitudes simultaneously.  Perhaps it is the magnitude of the subject which changes in relation to the object.

Does a change in materialisation level bring a change in contrastive magnitude?

In relation to a substantialiser my materialisation level increases. This in turn changes my contrastive magnitude. The duality of that substantialiser to materialise me is then changed as my contrastive magnitude will have either become close to other substantialisers or further away, either increasing or decreasing the contrastive differential.

Is my contrastive magnitude different in relation to substantialiser A than substantialiser B.

The magnitude of the contrastive differential.

A substantialiser enters the materialisation field. It's potential contrastive magnitude is calibrated in relation to the subject's life framework. The calibrated magnitude is then orientated within the materialisation range in relation to its differential saturation proximity. The greater the saturation proximity the more effective its materialisation potential.

A substantialiser's differential saturation proximity is determined by its contrastive magnitude in relation to the contrastive magnitude of the subject.  Its contrastive magnitude is conditioned by its differential saturation proximity. A substantialiser's contrastive magnitude maintains a basic potentiality that calibrates the range within it is actualised once it has entered the materialisation range.

Some substantialisers have a larger contrastive magnitude potentiality range and so can appeal to people of varying contrastive magnitudes.

So Rembrandt's Night Watch as a high contrastive magnitude and a  low potentiality range, and so will only appeal to a subject with a lower contrastive magnitude. The Mona Lisa has a high contrastive magnitude but a large potentiality range and so will appeal to subjects of both a high and low contrastive magnitude.

The contrastive potential.

The contrastive potentiality range

Contrastive magnitude.

The contrastive magnitude gets set in relation to the subject.

Mood is an indication of the contrastive magnitude of the subject.

Repeated exposure to a substantialiser modifies the subject's contrastive range so as to lessen the contrastive differential between the substantialiser and subject.

The substantialisers potential contrastive magnitude enters the subject's materialisation range and gets aligned within the operation of its life framework. A life framework is a combination of its cultural influences, upbringing and so on.

The contrastive magnitude as potential becomes actualised once it has entered the materialisation field. This actualisation occurs in relation to the differential saturation point within the materialisation range.

The distinction between the materialisation range, which determines the contrastive magnitude of substantialisers hat can effectively materialise the subject, and the differential range that determines the magnitude of the differential that effects the intensity of the materialisation.

No, the materialisation range measures differential but the substantialiser's range measures contrastive magnitude.

agonic - having or forming no angle. Homogeneity is agonic.

Immorality is an attempt to come into existence. The immoral person is one of low materialisation level.

The internal contrast of the substantialiser conditions its overall contrastive magnitude.

The life framework refracts the potential contrastive magnitude of the substantialiser, thereby orchestrating its actualised contrastive magnitude in regards to its differential saturation proximity. This is the manner in which the substantialiser is calibrated within the subject's materialisation field.

The potential contrastive magnitude of a substantialiser resides within the nothingness/nothingness contrastive matrix. So the nothingness/nothingness contrast is a potentiality/potentiality contrast. Nothingness is potentiality. So the life framework of the subject refracts nothingness-as-potentiality. So therefore the world/world contrastive matrix does not become actualised until it comes into relation with subjectivity. So the nothingness/nothingness contrastive matrix contrasts to produce the world/world contrastive matrix. And as the nothingness/nothingness contrastive matrix is a potentiality matrix that only becomes materialised through its refraction within the subject's life framework, the nothingness/nothingness matrix that provides the ground for the possibility of the world/world matrix only exists in relation to subjectivity. The world/world matrix is the actualised potential of the nothingness/nothingness matrix in relation to subjectivity. But subjectivity itself is only relationally materialised within the world/world matrix. The self perpetuating circularity of universal self-reflexivity.

Nothingness is potentiality. Potentiality is neutralised in relation to the life framework. Actualised potentiality is the world. The world contrasts to form the life framework. A self perpetuating circularity of universal self-reflexivity.

Read Hegel's Encyclopedia

Hegel, Phenomenology of Spirit, p. 10 "The substance is as subject, pure, simple negativity."

PS p.12 "And the self is the sameness and simplicity that relates itself to itself."

The universe, in perceiving itself through subjectivity is engaging in an act of homogeneity. However the homogeneity is spatially heterogeneous, and so the universal act of self reflexivity is essentially a homogeneous heterogeneity.

PS p.14 "...substance is essentially subject."

PS p.14 "That the true is actual only as a system, or that substance is essentially subject, is expressed in the representation of the Absolute as spirit. The most sublime Nature and the one which belongs to the modern age and its religion. The spiritual alone is the actual; it is essence, or that which has being-in-itself; it is that which relates itself to itself and is determinate, it is other, being and being-for-itself, and in this determinateness, or in its self externality, abides within itself; in other world, it is in and for itself. But this being-in-and-for-itself, it is spiritual substance. It must also be thus for-itself, it must be the knowledge of itself as spirit ie it must be an object to itself, but just as immediately as sublated object, reflected into itself. It is for itself only for us, in so far as it is also for itself for its own self, this self generally, the pure Nation is for it the objective element in which is has its existence, and it is in this way, in its existence for itself, an object reflected into itself. The spirit that so developed, knows itself as spirit, is science, science in its actuality and the realm which it builds for itself in its own element.

PS. p.14 "Pure self recognition in absolute otherness is the ground and soul of science or knowledge in general."

PS p.15 "This for-itself, has to express itself outwardly and become for itself, and this means that it has to posit self-consciousness as one within itself."

PS p.16 "In this respect formative education, regarded from the side of the individual consists in his acquiring what thus lies at hand, devouring his inorganic nature and taking possession of it for himself. But, regarded from the side of universal spirit as substance, this is nothing but its own acquisition of self consciousness, the bringing-about of its own becoming and reflection into itself."

Philosophy and science-as-philosophy is the culmination of universal self reflexivity.

PS p21 "...the negative is the self. Now, although this negative appears at first as a disparity between the "I" and its object, it is just as much the disparity of the substance within itself. Thus what seems to happen outside of it, to be an activity directed against it, is really its own doing and substance shows itself to be essentially subject. When it has shown this completely, spirit has made its existence identical with its essence, it has itself for its object just as it is and the abstract elements of immediacy, and of the separation of knowing and truth, is overcome..."

PS p.24 "The inner coming-to-be or genesis of existence is an unbroken transition into outer existence, into being-for-another, and conversely, the genesis of existence is how existence is by itself taken back into essence."

PS p.27 "The principle of magnitude of difference not determined by the relation and the principle of equality, of abstract lifeless unity, cannot cope with the sheer unrest of life and its absolute distinction."

The Heterogeneity of Existence.

PS. p.28 "In the whole of the movement, seen as a state of repose, what distinguishes itself therein and gives itself particular existence is preserved as something that reflects itself, whose existence is self knowledge, and whose self knowledge is just as immediately existence."

The nascency of contrast.

PS p.33 "...since [our] knowing sees the content return into its own inwardness, its activity is totally absorbed in the content, for it is the immanent self of the content; yet it has at the same time returned into itself, for it is pure self-identity in otherness."

PS p.34 "The determinateness seems at first to be due entirely to the fact that it (self identity) is related to an other."

PS p.52 "Consciousness simultaneously distinguished itself from something, and at the same time relates to it, or, as it is said, this something exists for consciousness; and the determinate aspect of this relating, or of the being of something for a consciousness, is knowing. But we distinguish this being-for-another from being-in-itself; whatever is related to knowledge or knowing is also distinguished from it and posited outside of this relationship; this being-in-itself is called truth."

PS. p.53 "In consciousness one thing exists for another."

PS p.54 "For consciousness is, on the one hand consciousness of the object, and on the other, consciousness of itself."

PS p.54 "Hence it comes to pass for consciousness that what it previously took to be the in-itself is not an in-itself, or that it is only an in-itself for consciousness."

PS p.56 "This is now movement of consciousness there occurs a moment of being-in-itself or being-for-us which is not present to the consciousness comprehended in the experience of itself."

PS p.67 "Since the principle of the object, the universal, is in its simplicity a mediated universal, the object must express thus its nature in its own self."

PS p.68 "The this is therefore established as not this or as something superseded; and hence not as nothing but as a determinate nothing, the nothing of a content, viz. of the This."

PS p.68 "Being, however, is a universal in virtue of its having mediation of the negative within it, when it expresses this in its immediacy it is a differentiated, determinate property."

PS p.69 "To wit, if the many determinate properties were strictly indifferent to one another, if they were simply and solely self-related, they would not be determinate for they are only determinate in so far as differentiate themselves from one another and related themselves to others as to their opposites."

PS p.69 "The One is the moment of negation; it is itself quite simply a relation of self to self and it excludes an other, and it is that by which 'thinghood' is determined by a Thing."

PS p.70 "The percipient is aware of the possibility of deception; for in the universality which is the principle, otherness itself is immediately present for him, though present as what is null and superseded. His criterion of truth is therefore self identity, and his behaviour consists in apprehending the object as self-identical. Since at the same time diversity is explicitly there for him, it is a connection of the diverse moments of his apprehension to one another."

PS p.70 "The object which I apprehend presents itself purely as a one; but I also perceive it as a property which is universal, and which thereby transcends the singularity [of the object]."

PS p.71 "Only when it (the True) belongs to a One is it a property and only in relation to others is it determinate. As this pure relating of itself to itself, it remains merely sensuous being in general, since it no longer possesses the character of negativity."

PS p.71 "Thus it becomes quite definite for consciousness how its perceiving is essentially constituted, being, that it is not a simple pure apprehension, but in its apprehension is at the same time reflected out of the True and into itself. This return of consciousness into itself which is directly mingled with the pure apprehension [of the object] for this return into itself has shown itself to be essential to perception - alters the truth."

PS p.73 "...yet there are determinate properties in it (the Thing) only because they are a plurality of reciprocally self-differentiating elements."

PS p.74 123

PS p.75 124 Heterogeneity

PS p.125 Things in relation to things.

PS p.76 126 "...the Thing has its essential being in another Thing."

PS p.76 128 "With this the last 'in so far' that separated being-for-self from being-for-another falls away; on the contrary, the object is in one and the same respect the opposite of itself: it is for itself, so far as it is for another and it is for another so far as it is for itself. It is for itself, refracted into itself, as one; but this for-itself this reflection into itself, this being a one, is posited in a unity with its opposite, with its being for another, and hence only as cancelled: in other words, this being-for-self is just as inessential as the only aspect that was supposed to be inessential, being the relationship to another."

PS p.76-77  129 Universal self reflexivity.

PS p.81  176 "The [unconditioned] universal is simply and solely the plurality of the diverse universal of this mind."

PS p.81-82  136 Force.

PS p.82 "For difference is nothing else than being-for-another."

PS p.81 "In other world, the 'matters posited as independent directly pass over into their unity and their unity directly infolds its diversity and this once again returns itself to unity. But this movement is what is called force."

PS p.95  140 The two fold difference. Content and form.

PS p.88  146 "The inner world is for consciousness, still a pure beyond because consciousness does not as yet find itself in it. It is empty for it is merely the nothingness of appearance, and potentially the simple or unitary universal."

PS p. 89  147 appearance and essence.

PS p.90 "...what there is in this absolute flux is only difference as a universal difference, or as a difference into which the many antitheses have been resolved. This difference is a universal difference, is  consequently the simply element in the play of Force itself and what is true in it. It's the law of Force."

PS p.90  149 Universal difference.

PS p.91 "Universal attraction merely asserts that everything has a constant difference in relation to other things."

PS p.94   184 difference.

PS p.96  187  "The self same really repels itself from itself and what is not self some really posits itself as self same.  In point of fact it is only when thus determined that the difference is real difference, or difference in its own self, the with being unlike itself, and the within, like itself."

PS p.100  "This simple infinity, or the absolute notion, may be called the simple essence of life, the soul of the world, the universal blood, whose omnipresence neither disturbed nor interrupted by any difference, but rather is itself every difference, as also their supersession; it pulsates within itself but does not move, inwardly vibrates, yet is at rest.  It is self identical for the differences are tautological; they are differences that are none. This identical essence is therefore related only to itself; 'to itself' implies relationship to an 'other' and the relationship to self is rather a self-surrendering; or, in other worlds, that very self self-identicalness is an inner difference..."

Habituation is heterogeneous homogeneity.

A footballer acts without thinking. A philosopher thinks without thinking.

PS p.104  166 Being-as-itself and being-for-another.

PS p.105  "self consciousness is desire in general."

PS p.106  169 difference.

The young child has not yet entered into heterogeneity. It still inhabits the provided homogeneity of pre-contrastive universality.

PS p.107  171 "shapes have no being in themselves, no enduring substance."

PS p.107  171 Universal self reflexivity.

PS p.108  171 "Thus the simple substance of life is the splitting up of itself into shapes and at the same time the dissolution of these existent differences; and the dissolution of the splitting up is just as much a splitting up and a forming of members."

PS p.110 "Self consciousness achieves its satisfaction only in another self consciousness."

PS p.110  176 "The satisfaction of Desire is, it is true, the reflection of self consciousness into itself, or the certainty that has become truth."

PS p.110  177 "A self consciousness exists for a self consciousness."

Time is a non extended duration.

PS p.111  178  "Self consciousness exists in and for itself when, and by the fact that, it so exists for another; that is it exists only in being acknowledged."

PS p.111   179 the Other.

PS p.111  182  "Now, this movement of self consciousness in relation to another self consciousness has this way been represented as the action of one self consciousness but this notion of the one for itself the double significance of being both its own action and the action of the other as well."

Heterogeneous homogeneity.

PS p.121  199 Difference.

PS p.127  "The differences, which in pure thinking of self-consciousness are only the abstraction of differences, here become the entirety of the differences, and the whole of differentiated being becomes a difference of self consciousness."

PS p. 132  219  "The world of actuality to which desire and work are directed is no longer for this consciousness something intrinsically null, something merely to be set aside and consumed, but something like that consciousness itself, an actuality, broken in two, which is only from one aspect intrinsically and but from another aspect is also a sanctified world."

PS p.133  220 "Consciousness, on its part, like cause makes its appearance as an actuality but also as divided within itself and in its work and enjoyment this dividedness displays itself as breaking up into a relation to the world of mutuality or a being which is for itself and into a being that is in itself."

PS p.135  225 "To begin with as regards the contradictory relation in which consciousness takes its own reality to be immediately a nothingness."

PS p.136  227 The relation between individuality and the in-itself.

PS p.140  233 "...that what is, or the in-itself, only is in so far as it is for consciousness and what is a consciousness is also in itself or has intrinsic being."

PS p.141  234 "Consciousness will determine its relationship to otherness or its object in various ways, according to the precise stage it has reached in the development of the World-Spirit into self-consciousness." Materialisation level effecting contrastive magnitude.

Magnitude saw the nothingness of the world and mistook it for a negative void. Jesus saw the nothingness of the world and mistook it for God.

PS p.154  254  The relation of the organic to the inorganic.

Consciousness is a third order universal self reflexivity. The first tier is the nothingness/nothingness contrast that produces non consciousness in organic matter.  The second tier is the world/world contrast that produces non conscious organic matter.  The third tier is the world/nothingness contrast that produces conscious organic subjectivity.  The third tier is essentially then a nothingness/nothingness/nothingness contrast and hence it is called a third order contrast. The third order contrast is the scaffolding that nothingness erects in order to perceive itself.  This third order contrast is a manifest universal self reflexivity.

The body is within second order contrastive matrix and is the conduit of the contrast between that matrix and self reflexive nothingness.

Contrast is always contrast between non-substantiality that produces quasi substantiality.

The first tier nothingness/nothingness contrast that produces non-consciousness in organic matter is engendered in relation to the nothingness which constitutes the third tier contrast that materialises consciousness.  The second nothingness of the first tier contrast is the nothingness of the world/nothingness third order contrast.

Nothingness/nothingness

world/world

world/nothingness

So the objective nothingness/nothingness contrast is in fact conditioned by the world/nothingness contrast. This is the actualisation phase in the nascency of contrast that is effected through the refraction within the subject's life framework.

Consciousness arises when nothingness perceives itself.  Consciousness is a universal self reflexivity.

PS p.160  262  "...the outer is the expressive of the inner."

PS p.161  262  "For sensibility expresses in general the simple notion of organic reflection - into-itself, or the universal fluidity of this notion."

PS p.163-164  271 The magnitude of the organism.

PS p.168  280  "Consequently, the way in which difference, qua what expresses itself is just this, that it is an indifferent difference, ie difference in magnitude."

PS p.173 289  "This unessential difference, magnitude, must therefore know its counterpart or other in the other aspect, viz.  the plurality of properties, since it is only through this that it is difference at all."

PS p.173  289  "But conversely freedom of being-for-self only proves itself in the ease with which it enters into relation with everything and preserves itself in this multiplicity."

PS p.178 Hegel talks of the essenceless difference.

PS p.178  The world is the superstructure erected by nothingness so that it may have a platform from which to view itself.

Hylic/noetic.

Noeylic  Hyoetic  Hy-oetic

Hylinoetic  Hylinic  Hylioetic Hylioesis.

Title: Relational Materialisation: The contrastive nascence of Hylioesis.

Hylioesis is a concept embracing both the body and consciousness.

The mind body dichotomy rests on the contrast between actualised nothingness (body, materiality), and nothingness (potentiality).  The contrast results in Hylioesis.  This is the third tier of the nascency of contrast.  The world/nothingness contrast.

Hylioesis is a third order contrastive juncture resulting from a nothingness/nothingness/nothingness contrast.

Once Hylioesis has de-materialised the individual is reclaimed by the potentiality of non-contrastive nothingness.

Title: Contrastive Nascency: Hylioesis as Universal Self Reflexivity.

Relational Nascentisation.

Relational Nascinisation.

Hylioesis is nasiential in relation to exteriority.

Hylioesis is actualised in relation to exteriority through the nascency of contrast.

Hylioesis is entelchylised in relation to exteriority.

Hylioesis becomes in relation to exteriority.

Hylioesis entelechy.

Hylioesis is an entelechy that becomes in relation to exteriority which is the nascency of contrast.

Research the world entelechy.

Entelechy - Aristotle.

Entelechy/Entelechial/Entelechisation/Entelechiser

Hylioesis is actualised in relation to exteriority through the nascency of contrast. Hylioesis is a relational entelechy. Hylioesis becomes actual through its commerce with actualisers within its actualisation field.

Contrastive nascency.

Relational entelechy.

Materialised is the wrong world. Materialise has connotations of substantiality. The world once actualised does not maintain substantiality.

The differential between the contrastive magnitude of the actualiser and the contrastive magnitude of the individual Hylioetic nothingness actualises the Hylioetic.

Another word for actualiser/substantialiser.

Coin a term for the subject's nothingness.

Coin another term for the substantialiser.

Coin another term for relational materialisation.

Localised nothingness ---> subject's nothingness.

The differential between the contrastive magnitude of the actualiser and the contrastive magnitude of the localised nothingness materialises the Hylioetic. This is the contrastive nascency of relational entelechy.

This materialisation is a non-substantial one.

Actualiser

Nascency of contrast

Relational entelechy

Localised nothingness

Localised nothingness is simply a nothingness of a third order.

Hylioesis Hylioetic Hypostatise

Localised nothingness is the periscope of universal self reflexivity.

Hylioetic.

Is my solution to the mind/body problem simply a nothingness monism. Nothingness is pure heterogeneous potentiality and so nothingness monism is a nothingness multiplicity.

My nothingness monism contains the duality of the materiality/materiality dichotomy.  For nothingness is the potential for duality.

Use/Equipmentality is a calibration factor (or is it a refraction factor).

Nothingness contrasts to form non-conscious inorganic matter, here termed the hylic.  The Hylic contrasts to form non-conscious organic matter, here termed the biogenic. The biogenic contrasts with localised nothingness to form the mind/body complex here termed the bionoetic.

nothingness/nothingness

1  hylic

hylic/hylic

2  biogenic

biogenic/nothingness

3  bionoetic

Another word for biogenic.

Biomass

Bionoetic

Bionoesis

The first order nothingness contrasts with the third order localised nothing to materialise the Hylic contrastive matrix.

So third order localised nothingness is the periscope of universal self reflexivity that perpetuates the circularity of its genesis.

Contrast (1) in fact causes contrast (2).

Contrast (2) is the first order nothingness/nothingness contrast.

Contrast (1) is the contrast between the first order nothingness and the third order localised nothingness.

Reality as the many forms of nothingness.

PS p.195-196  325 "Organs...however, are to be considered as instruments or parts while spirit, as one extreme, possesses a middle term against the other extreme, which is the external object."  The contrast between polarities causes the manifestation of reality at the point of contrast. Hence an object is a contrastive juncture.

Title:  Relational Entelechy: The Contrastive Nascence of the Bionoetic as Universal Self Reflexivity.

The universe, as nothingness, maintains of latent consciousness. It is a potential consciousness that is actualised in the bionoetic.

PS p.197  327  "...as spirit itself is not abstractly simply but a system of movements in which it differentiates itself into moments."

The bionoetic is a manifest Heterogeneity.

Entelechism.

Entelechisation.

The nothingness/nothingness contrast that operates on the objective plane and that produces the Hylic is in fact the nothingness/localised nothingness contrast that is established between subject and object.  So the contrast between the subject and the object creates the contrastive nothingness matrix that materialises the Hylic. In fact, that objective matrix, when contrasted with the localised nothingness of subjectivity, produces the contrastive nothingness matrix of subjectivity. The contrastive nothingness matrix of subjectivity is materialised thought.  So the subject in relation to the object produces the contrastive matrix that materialises the Hylic.  The Object in relation to the subject produces the contrastive matrix that materialises thought. Thoughts are to the subject as colours are to the object.

Dreams occur when, through sleep, the mind is divorced from its exterior materialisation field. The internal contrastive matrix which materialises thought is disrupted.

Title: Universal Self-Reflexivity.

What is the relation between these two paradigms (above). Do they need to contrast to materialise the theory of relational materialisation? Or are they the macro/micro versions of the same thing?

Title: The self-reflexivity of nothingness.

Nothingness/nothingness

hylic

hylic/hylic

biorganic

biorganic/localised nothingness

bionoetic

bionoetic/Hylic/biorganic/bionoetic

universal self reflexivity.

Homogeneous nothingness got curious.

Ossified. The bionoetic is ossified nothingness resulting from the contrastive juncture between the biogenic and localised nothingness.

Or the body is the ossified manifestation of contrastive nothingness.

PS p.211  347  "Self-consciousness found the Thing to be like itself, and itself to be like a Thing; ie it is aware that it is in itself the objectively real world...its (objectively) inner being and essence being self consciousness itself...The Object to which it is positively related, is therefore a self consciousness."

PS p.216  359  "In holding itself to be, qua being for self, essential being, it is the negativity of the other. In its consciousness, therefore, it appears as the positive in contrast to something without intrinsic being."

Nothingness is a middle term. It is not nihilistic nor is it eternalistic. It contains the possibility of both while being neither.

Title: Relational Nothingness.

PS p.217  360  "Self consciousness which, on the whole, knows itself to be reality, has its object in its own self, but as an object which initially is merely for self consciousness, and does not yet possess (objective) being which confronts it as a reality other than its own; and self consciousness, by behaving as a being-for-self aims to see itself as another independent being.  This primary End is to become aware of itself as an individual in the other self consciousness, or to make this other into itself; it is certain that this other is in principle already itself."

PS p.218  362  "It attends therefore to the enjoyment of pleasure, to the consciousness of its actualisation..."

PS p.219  363  "The object, then, that is for self consciousness as it takes its pleasure in essence is the expansion of those empty essentialities of pure unity of pure difference, and their relation; beyond this the object which the individuality experiences as its essence has no content.  It is what is called necessity; for necessity, fate, and the like, is just about which we cannot say what it does, what its specific laws and positive content are, because it is the absolute pure Notion itself viewed as [mere] being, a relation that is simple and empty, but also irresistible and imperturbable, whose work is merely the nothingness of individuality. It is the fixed relation because what is related is the pure essentiality or empty abstraction. Unity, difference and relation are categories each of which is nothing in and for itself, but only in relation to its opposite and they cannot therefore be separate from one another."

The result, consciousness is the manifest self reflexivity of nothingness.

A wooden table was once biogenic, though it is now hylic.  Its return to the hylic plane was as a result of the loss of the hylic from its contrastive juncture.  It was then simply a nothingness/nothingness contrast, and so reverted to the hylic plane.

So to become hylic, the wood must lose the hylic from its materialisation field.

A lifetime enjoyed on earth is worth far more than an eternity enjoyed in heaven.

My Hylic is Hegel's in-itself. The Hylic is a contrastive juncture between nothingness and nothingness. It does not enter into relationship with any of the subsequent levels of existence (biogenic, bionoetic, consciousness).

CD ROM, INTRO, SECTION 3, SECTION 36. "There are no two things which are perfectly identical with each other."

PS p.241  402  Work/action.

PS p.242  "...there is nothing for individuality which has not been made so by it, or there is no reality which is not individuality even nature and doing, and no action nor in-itself of individuality that is not real..."

PS p.242  404  Universal self reflexivity. "Therefore feeling or exaltation, or lamentation or repentance are altogether out of place. For all that sort of thing stems from a mind which imagines a context and an in-itself which are different from the original nature of the individual..."

PS p.243  405  "...we have to consider by itself the work produced. It has received into itself the whole nature of the individuality. Its being is therefore itself an action in which all differences interpenetrable and are dissolved."

PS p.245  408  "purpose is related simply to actuality." This is where Heidegger developed his notion of the Ready-to-hand.

PS p.281  467  "...therefore the object, and its opposition to the subject, has lost entirely the significance of having an essential being of its own."

PS p.290  480  "For what counts as absolute essential being is self consciousness or the sheer empty unit of other person...This empty unit of the person is, therefore, in its reality a contingent existence, and essentially, a process and an action that comes to no lasting result."

The bionoetic as other also enters into the subject materialisation field, though in this schema is considered a concentrated form of the biogenic/nothingness contrastive matrix.

Subjectivity = self reflexivity.

The for-itself.

PS p.298  "It is therefore through culture that the individual acquires standing and actuality."

PS p.299 "...existence is really the perversion of every determinateness into its opposite."

PS p.300 The spheres of self conscious actuality. "In the first sphere it is an implicitly universal self identical spiritual being; in the second it is explicitly for itself and has become inwardly divided against itself, sacrificing and abandoning itself, in the third, it possesses directly its own self the force of Fire."

PS p.304  "But self consciousness was at first only incompletely related to its objects."

PS p.309  "Consequently, the unity (of spirit) as a middle term, which is excluded and distinct from the separated, actual existence of the sides; it has therefore, itself, an actual objective existence distinct from its sides, and has reality for them, ie, it; something exists."

PS p.312  514 "...wealth is for consciousness, the depraved universal.

PS p.323  "Their essence (spiritual essentialities), simple consciousness, is then the simplicity of absolute difference which is at once no difference. Consequently, it is pure being-for-self, not as this single self but as the immanently universal self in the form of a restless process which affects and pervades the passive essence of the 'matter in hand'."

PS p.342  560  "...everything is thus as much something in itself as it is for an 'other', in other world, everything is useful. Everything is at the mercy of everything else, now lets itself be used by others and is for them."

PS p.352  "Thought is thinghood, or thinghood is thought."

PS p.353 "In part, essence must contain difference within itself.

PS p.356 583 self reflexivity.

PS p.357  586  "The antithesis consists, therefore, solely in the difference between the individual and the universal self consciousness."

PS p.385   634  "Spirit is, in an immediate unity, a self actualised being."

PS p.387-388  639-640  being-for-another.

PS p.388  "The action is thus only the translation of its individual content into the objective element in which it is universal and recognised, and it is just the fact that it is recognised that makes the deed reality."

PS p.393 647  knowledge

PS p.394  648 knowledge

PS p.394  648  "...in being, the difference is established as an enduring difference and the action is a specific action..."

PS p.395  656  "The self enters into existence as self; the self assured spirit exists as such for others."

PS p.400  659  individuality/universality and being for another.

PS p.401  660  "It particularly consists in the fact that the two moments constituting its consciousness, the self and the in itself, are held to be unequal in value within it, a disparity which they are also determined that the certainty of itself is the essential being in face of the in-itself or the universal which counts only as a moment."

PS p.401  660 "...while individuality, on the other hand, which in contrast to the universal is for itself, counts only as a superseded moment."

PS p.403  664  "Now through this judgement, it (consciousness) places itself, as we have just remarked, alongside the first consciousness, and the latter, through this likeness, comes to see its own self in this other consciousness."

PS p.429  709  The artist.

Hegel's dialectic of otherness, hypertext, getting to know Hegel, real human relations. See Simone de Beauvoir, Introduction to The Second Sex: "Thus it is that no group ever sets itself up as the One without at once setting up the Other over against itself."

From the shorter logic, section 111n "In the sphere of Essence one category does not pass into another, but refers to another merely. In Being, the forms of reference is purely due to our reflection on what takes place: but it is the special and proper characteristic of Essence. In the sphere of being, when somewhat becomes another, the somewhat has vanished. Not so in Essence: here there is no real other, but only diversity, reference of the one to its other. This transition of Essence is therefore at the same time no transition: for in the passage of different into different, the different does not vanish: the different terms remain in their relation. When we speak of being and Naught, Being is independent, so is Naught."

(hypertext, getting to know Hegel, Real Human relations).

PS p.457  755 "Spirit has in it the two sides which are presented above as two converse propositions. One is this, that substance alienates itself and becomes self consciousness; the other is the converse, that self consciousness alienates itself from itself and gives itself the nature of a Thing, or makes itself a universal self...--->"

PS p.465  770 Being for self. "<--- ...and="" actual="" and="" circular="" immanent="" is="" movement.="" o:p="" precisely="" this="" true="" what="">

PS p.487  774 "<--- ---="" ..this="" a="" another="" at="" being="" for="" is="" same="" the="" time="" world="">"

PS p.467  774 "Thus the merely eternal or abstract spirit becomes an 'other' to itself, or enters into existence, must directly into immediate existence. Accordingly it creates a world."

PS p.470  778 "Then (self/other) still empty middle term is existence in general, the bare community of other two moments."

PS p.470-471  779 Death.

PS p.479  788  "The negative of the object, or its self suspension, has a positive meaning for self consciousness ie self consciousness knows the nothingness of the object, on the one hand because it externalises its own self - for in this externalisation it posits itself as object, or the object as itself in virtue of the indivisible unity of self."

PS p.481  791  "The Thing is "I": in point of fact, in this intuitive judgement the Thing is superseded; in itself it is nothing; it has meaning only in the relation, only through the "I" and its connections with it."

PS p.481  791  "Things are simply useful and to be considered only from the standpoint of utility."

PS p.481  791

PS p.488  802  "It is in itself the movement which is cognition - the transforming of that in-itself into that which is for itself, of substance into subject or consciousness into an object of self consciousness, ie, into an object that is just as much superseded, or into the notion."

PS p.489  803  pure difference.

Absolute mechanism, Hegel by Hypertext, Getting to know Hegel, Mechanism.

Giles Deleuze, Difference and Repetition.

Communism doesn't work because it is driven by the directness of homogeneity. Capitalism works because it embraces heterogeneity.

A thought by itself has not existence. It is only in reacting to that thought that it is made active in the person's consciousness. A typical thought: I fear X, occurs in the consciousness of the subject.  This thought causes a discomfort, and a reaction follows, typically a thought: I will conquer my fear.  In thinking this second thought, the first is actualised in relation to it, and becomes active in the consciousness of the subject as a result. The first thought, having come into existence, now repeats itself in the subject's consciousness. A third thought is required to counteract the de-materialising effects of this third thought. And through this movement, fear is perpetuated within the consciousness of the subject though the nascency of contrastive relational materialisation. A better cause of action is to remain indifferent to thought. Simply observe it, and in not having a surrounding contrastive matrix to relationally materialise its existence, the first thought will dematerialise and return to its ground of non contrastive nothingness. The psychology of relational materialisation.

Love and hate colour the refracting lens of the life framework, so as to modify the actualised contrastive magnitude and hence the saturation proximity of the substantialiser to bring it within the subject's materialisation range.

Time is simply a vehicle for heterogeneity.

PS p.497  18 self departing, self returning movement.

PS p.497  21  The other.

Ps p.499  32  The necessity of difference.

PS p.509  102  "The one also stands essentially opposed to other ones and cannot say how this one differs from another. Even man is, as an experient, every man."

PS p.512 124 Identity and difference.

PS p.517  159  Everything in the sense world is there only with a nuance of difference that really amounts to nothing."

PS p.518  166  "The conscious Ego is with the related subject-object terms and the relation between them: it has an other which it overreaches and sees as itself."

PS p.519  175  "Self consciousness can only achieve satisfaction in another self consciousness."

Once an anti-substantialiser has entered the materialisation field, the mind, in order to compensate for the resultant de-materialisation, grasps onto another substantialiser so as to ensure the continual materialisation of the subject. This new substantialiser in effect materialises the anti-substantialiser through its relation. So in trying to escape de-materialisation the mind actually perpetuates it.  This whole process re-calibrates the mental contrastive matrix, resulting in a change in the subject's materialisation range.

PS p.534  291  "...the organism contains a principle of sensuous differentiation within itself."

PS p.535  293  "Generic universality, differentiated specificity, and individual singularity are the three syllogistic terms by their inter-relations, explain organic and inorganic being."

The substantialisers in the contrastive matrix of localised nothingness which is manifest within the bionoetic.  If one could perceive the contents of the subconscious one would perceive the totality of the universal nor contrastive nothingness that grounds existence."

Awareness is the key. It doesn't matter what you do, as long as you are aware.

Diremptive.

Evil is as necessary as good. A perfect world of material benefaction could not exist. However, this view changes nothing. People still should, and indeed must, condemn evil in the world and proceed with measures to combat it.

The mind is contrastive matrix.

Water is a manifest heterogeneity. It is the facilitator, the propagator, of the broader heterogeneity within the world contrastive matrix.

The mind is a contrastive matrix.  A thought is a contrastive juncture within this matrix that is actualised in relation to the contrastive matrix of exteriority.

The contrastive matrix of exteriority considered as a totality itself requires a part of relation towards which to be materialised.  This point of relation is subjectivity and as such is the facilitator of the nascency of contrast which materialises the contrastive matrix of exteriority. Subjectivity is also a contrastive matrix, but an internal rather than an external one. This internal contrastive matrix (mind) considered as a totality itself requires a point of relation towards which it may materialise and enter into the free play of the nascency of contrast.  This point of relation is exteriority considered of course as a contrastive matrix.

Meaning is a set of contrastive variations.

Inter alia.

The materialisation field of the individual is temporalised.

Use words which are not part of the common currency. Heterogeneity in action.

The contrastive matrix of the world and Heidegger's totality of equipmentality. A definite similarity (and difference of course).

The nascency of contrast is the mechanism of universal self reflexivity.

Subjectivity ---> a foci of contrast.

A facilitator of contrast. An epicentre.

The difference between the finite and the infinite. Human beings draw the line. But this is not simply naive subjectivism. If we consider a Hegelian conception of subjectivity as looking out onto a world which is essentially a separated identity of itself, we can say that they human being's arbitration of the division between the finite and the infinite is the world's arbitration. The subjective/objective distinction breaks down (invent a term for this).

People sell products as a form of project self affirmation. The seller, projecting themselves onto the product, seeks a sale of that product to the other as a form of 'safe' acceptance seeking.  The product is a surrogate for the self.  If someone purchases the product, the seller is reaffirmed as to their own worth, as the product has become them in a projected state. The question is not do you like me, but do you want to buy my product.

They are really the same question essentially.  It is a game of once removed self affirmation. This ties into the relationally materialising effect of the product.

When people give advice to other people, they are in effect giving advice to themselves.

The malaise of the scientific method. Science, having found itself eminently useful, has now appointed itself the sole arbitrator of truth. But what is the relation between utility and truth? Given that the world is a human world, the two notions are ultimately related.  While utility may be truth, if you make the distinction between them, as science has, and claim both utility and truth then you make a very bold claim indeed.

Aristotle/Buddha "Live in accordance with a mean." The difficulty arises when it becomes apparent that one may never approximate the mean consciously. A mean, being such in relation to its accompanying extremes, is only manifestly contextually within a situation. But, due to the focused nature of consciousness, the conscious mind can never grasp the totality of contextual components in any given situation. Given that the mean can only be determined in relation to such a totality, the conscious mind can never actively approximate once.  The subconscious mind is another story however.

How does a past event settle into the unconscious and subsequently cause later neuroses. The event establishes a contrastive differential within the mind of the individual. This differential engenders an 'idea' or contrastive variant within the individual's mind. If this contrastive variant has a contrastive magnitude that falls outside the individual's materialisation range, it is experienced as painful.  Being of a particular contrastive magnitude this idea or contrastive variant will cause other ideas to arise within the contrastive matrix of the individual's mind by establishing internal contrastive differentials within the mind's contrastive matrix. These subsequent ideas or contrastive variants are grasped onto by the individual so as to once again enter into the process of relational materialisation rather than de-materialisation. These new ideas will be of a different contrastive magnitude to the initial de-materialising idea (anti-substantialiser) and so more propitious in effecting the relational materialisation of the individual. However, these new thoughts rely on the first though for their existence. They are themselves materialised in relation to the first thought within the contrastive matrix of the mind. So in grasping of these subsequent thoughts and including them within the materialisation field, the initial traumatic thought is repressed into the subconscious through its relation to these thoughts which are not operating on a conscious level as substantialisers. Now that the initial thought (anti-substantialiser) has been buried in the unconscious, it is still operative within the contrastive matrix of the mind through its relational materialisation potential which is engendered through its contrastive magnitude.  In effect new thoughts enter the conscious mind that have been materialised in relation to the anti-substantialiser that is lurking within the unconscious. These new thoughts will be themselves disruptive, but their origin has now been cancelled. The conscious mind attempts to rationalise these new thoughts in relation to them. Perhaps some of the new thoughts are repressed, others grasped at. One can see how the mind then becomes hopelessly tangled in attempting its own therapeutic from within the contrastive matrix, form within which every new thought effects the contrastive matrix as a way re its contrastive magnitude and the subsequent contrastive differential it establishes with other thoughts within the mind contrastive matrix. The answer is to observe thoughts rather than engaging with them. In this way the mind becomes still, and the anti-substantialisers that are lurking within the unconscious (subconscious?) are made apparent, and can themselves be observed. Once they are observed without further stimulus through being relationally materialised in reference to other thoughts then they too will cease to exist, to de-materialise, and hence be cleansed from the individual's mind.

The observing technique may itself become a substantialiser within the contrastive matrix of the mind.  In this case observation as substantialiser must be observed. Does this lead to infinite regress?

In emphasising heterogeneity in the relational materialisation process, it must be kept in mind that this predilection is maintained within a philosophy that exists. In privileging heterogeneity over homogeneity, there is an awareness that neither of these two terms are really dominant,  but that in order to explain existence, and itself be a part of existence, the equilibration of bipolarity must be displaced in favour of one of the terms in the dichotomy. In reality, neither heterogeneity nor homogeneity is salient, but this insight is useful only to those who want to perceive reality, and not simply read a philosophical treatise on the subject.  For in actual fact heterogeneity is equiprimordial with homogeneity, but once this dichotomy spills out into existence, one term must claim mastery over the other.

Moderation is the gate to the palace of mediocrity.

A possible reason why the psychotic attaches a magnified meaning to objects and events. This 'meaning attachment' is a ubiquitous process amongst human beings, but in 'normal' people it is incipient within the subconscious presuppositions that govern commerce with the world.  For the psychotic however, this process has been tipped into the conscious mind and pedestalised. This 'tipping' effect is a mechanism employed by the mind when it attempts to become a subconscious object that is essentially unrecognisable. The subconscious process tips into the conscious, and in so doing the mind hopes for the irreconcilable subconscious object will be reconciled in the conscious mind.

something/nothing/nihilo

De-materialisation may result in psychosis/schizophrenia/obsessive compulsive etc.

When a substantialiser is removed from a person's materialisation field, the person begins to de-materialise.  Remove enough substantialisers from the field, and the person will enter into psychosis.  Not only does the person de-materialise in this way, but also the world. In losing themselves, they lose their world. The various symptoms of psychoses are the person's attempt to re-materialise their world and hence themselves. However, once the person has begun to de-materialise, and their world de-materialises, subsequently they are in effect left with nothing through which they may relationally materialise. Once the world has de-materialised there is no hope for the self to materialise. Hence the phrase 'the long slide'.

This is something of a Hegelian move, but not quite.

If you look at life 'as process' rather than life 'as event' then much mental vicissitude is avoided. For while a beautiful woman rejected my amorous advances (event), the 'life attitude' with which I leaped into the fray was indeed commendable, in a very Romantic way of course. I was throwing myself into life with neither fear nor favour (process). So they event was regrettable but the process was commendable.

BR p.92  Lenny Bruce "I'm not original. The only way I could truly say I was original is if I created the English language. I did, man, only they don't believe me."

Satre, A Biography, Ronald Hagman, p.106 "Things are exactly what they appear to be - and behind them...there was nothing."

Are other Dasein ready-to-hand?

For Husserl, consciousness constitutes the object as independent. Does consciousness constitute the other as independent?

Why listen to one counter example in the face of 100 cases in point?

We have to have presupposition. These constitute a person's life framework. Remove them and the individual/world disappears.

All good philosophy is provisional. Aware of its temporalised utility and not its absolute claim to truth. But is it useful to make a claim to truth?

Oxford Companion to Philosophy p.45 "On the contrary, it is the act of knowing that brings the things into existence."

Homologous.

The past exists in the present through memory. The future exists in the present through intention.

The temporal contrastive juncture.

The spatial contrastive juncture.

Satre to Castro: "You are dying of modesty. Dare to desire. Be insatiable...Don't be ashamed to want the moon. You should have it." Hayman, Satre, p.372

Husserl and the life-world. Life framework.

Husserl and the early transcendental ego.

The substantialiser explores the bionoetic's dispersal within the world.

The 20th century, the century of the self reflexive presupposition. (Heidegger/Husserl).

We have a past-present prejudice, rather than a future-present one. Why?

The spatio-temporal/physical. Psychical. What's the relationship?

Perhaps we might say the spatio is real and the temporal is ideal. The difference between the real and the ideal within this duality is then a speculation rather than a clear dichotomous break. An object is spatio-temporal has aspects which are real and those which are ideal. This is perhaps just another way to bridge the subject/object distinction after Husserl.

So relating this to the physical/physical, we might say the body is real while the mind is ideal, the body is spatial while the mind is temporal, and the difference between the two is a spectrum ranging between real and ideal, rather than a clear Cartesian dualistic break.

How do we explain spatial visualisation? Part of the spectrum. Do pure forms of consciousness trade in time rather than space (the visual)?

Are we training then to be office clerks or philosophers?

Focused consciousness/awareness dichotomies.

Satre at the brink of collapse at the end of his life. "After all, I've done what I could. I've done what I had to do."

Start out with an analysis of the subject/object dichotomy.

Satre, Ronald Hagner "...but there is something heroic in Satre's indomitable persistence, in his boundless willingness to be wrong."

I am wanting to achieve what Heidegger achieve, though do it from 'within' the philosophical tradition and its established dichotomies, especially Cartesian dichotomies. Rather than differentiating my position from tradition (heterogeneity), I will work from within it (homogeneity). While this is called a homogeneous move, it in fact turns out to be a heterogeneous one if we consider the current trend in art/literature/philosophy to be heterogeneous in relation to tradition. So in being homogeneous in this respect I am in fact being heterogeneous. A homogeneous heterogeneity one might say.

Contrastive magnitude is the ratio of homogenous/heterogeneity and the extent to which the dominant partner is dominant.

Time is 'subjective' while space is objective. What about space/time?
Time is subjective, space objective. Time is ideal, space is real.

What about a clock in space? What about object's through time?

What about this. Is space heterogeneous and time homogeneous? Yes and no. Too simple. Motion is accelerated heterogeneity. Perhaps something to think about.

Husserl: happiness is "perfectly innocent", an "instant of sheer youth." From Richard A Cohen

"Emmanuel Levinas: Happiness is a sensational time". In Philosophy Today, Fall 1981 p.201

The philosophy of serendipity.

The Heideggerian apostasy.

Turgescence. What a great word. Meaning - bombastic. Use - bombastic.

To use the world is to understand its meaning, without necessarily knowing its meaning. It is self perpetuating, closed to the world of signified's while still dealing with them. In relation to culture and the dog which chases its tail.

Heidegger and "I am that".

The Hegelian Ticklish Subject.

Is this still duality? Is 2 the smallest number, or 1 (if we include 0 as a number). The duality of the number 1. The relation between 0 and 1. The relation between nothing and something.

Presence within change (presange) or non presence within change (non presange).

Music is temporal, parting spatial.

"From now on the transitive character of the verb 'to know' is attached to the verb 'to exist'." Levinas, "Is Ontology Fundamental?" Basic Philosophical Writings, p.4

The move from adolescence to adulthood is the move from 'event' consciousness to 'process' consciousness.

The past/future is a dichotomy. Where does that leave the present?

In relation to the absurd example philosophy came up with to provide 'disproofs' of theories. We might say that a basic necessity of life is the human being needs food to survive. But the philosopher comes doing and says "first what about the patient who survives on drip a with no food." What has the philosopher missed here?

One may escape from the history of Art. One may escape from the history of philosophy. But one may not escape outside the world. (Heidegger).

Consciousness creates, but in creating is created.

New concept: Sideways time.

THE ORDER OF THINGS

Foucault on sympathy a relation to homogeneity. The order of things p.23-24

Foucault and antipathy and heterogeneity. TOT p.24

Foucault and resemblance TOT p.1

Similitude p.26

Resemblance and mirrors p.27

Similitude p.29

Resemblance p. 29, 30

Mirror p.39
Language and similitude p.36

Language and resemblance p.36

The play of resemblances p.41

Don Quixote and Difference and identity p.46

Similitude p.47

Difference and resemblances p.49

Baroque and similitude.

The Cartesian critique of resemblance p.57

"One can say that all knowledge is obtained by the comparison of two or more things with each other." But in fact... p.52

Comparison and difference p.53

Differences and inferences p.54

The interplay of similitude p.55

Macrocosm and microcosm p.55

Identity and difference p.57

Sympathy and similitude p.60

Similitude as an order of knowledge p.67

Similitude identity and knowledge p.68

Imagination and resemblance.

Duplication and imagination p.70

Identities and differences in science, taxonomy. p.71

The first four levels of logic are space, the fifth heart, the sixth for time, the last two time and space. Heart is the bridge between time and space. Heart is the bridge between time and space. How does sideways time fit into all of this? Is it at fifth level heart logic, or at tenth level space/time logic?

Primeval nothingness 'heterophies' and becomes self reflexive, allowing the ontological space for the nascency of contrast to build its edifice, an edifice which culminates in the Bionoetic.

Concentrate on Hegel's notion of the happy consciousness.

Mind as fluidity of non-essential substance.

The analytic of happiness.

There is a certain knid of certainty.

"The Inchoation of Relation"

Sideways time: All events through time occur in the present. The present appears as it does due to a focus of consciousness. The past is occurring simultaneously with the present, as is the future. The only difference being that the past is actualised temporality while the future is potentialised temporality.

The future may be potentialised actuality, while the past is actualised potentiality.

The determinants of the future rest in the present, and stem from the past. Temporal causality.

Rather than talking of materialisation level, talk of awareness level. When the bionoetic comes into relation with a substantialiser of a felicitous contrastive magnitude, and is correspondingly materialised and subsequently experiences happiness. This happiness/pleasure calibrates the awareness level. The awareness level goes up or down according to the constitution of the Bionoetic's materialisation field. For materialisation or lack thereof is an illusion, it is only the awareness that fluctuates.

Hegel is coming form a world (objective) perspective, Heidegger is coming from a human (subjective) perspective.

Oska Pfister, Modigliani’s psychoanalyst, "Repelled from the external world by bitter experiences, the cognitive subject hides itself away in its own inner world, and magnifies itself into a world-creator. The converse self-concept of the Expressionist artist is not vanity, but a psychologically necessary means to avoid the collapse of a lonely personality denuded of all reality. But this paranoid autism to be paid for with bitter martyrdom."

Modigliani, Alfred Werner, Thames and Hudson 1990, Great Britain.

The Penguin History of Western Philosophy p.71 "The general approach to the principles that govern life is that because the organisation of living bodies, they have capacities associated with certain organs. These will be realised if there is something that can act as the cause of that realisation or actualisation. In the basic forms of life which are present in plants it is clear how that works; food, for example, is the cause of the actualisation of the capacity for nourishment and thereby growth. In the case of animals and man there have to be objects which actualise the capacities of sense organs for forms of sense perception. In perception, Aristotle says, the object is ontically different from the sense organ that becomes like it in the process of perception..."

D.W. Hamlyn.

Epicurian Ataraxia (Freedom from anxiety)

In understanding the subject/object dichotomy think of it this way:

Mind/phenomena: wave

Object/phenomena:  particle

And then think of the coexistent nature of the wave/particle in physics.

To move from heterogeneous homogeneity to hegemony one must instantiate homogeneous heterogeneity. So this as analysis of Foucault will be most useful.

New concept: Forgetful time. The progress of time came not from what has gone before, only what is now.

Achromatic: free from colour. Nothingness is achromatic.

Think of the Bionoetic as you might intensity in the study of colour as defined in the Oxford companion to Art p.258 "...it (intensity) refers to the insistence of prominence which a patch of colour acquires in a particular context owing to enhancement by simultaneous contrast with neighbouring colours."

Contrastive matrices and context. Oxford Companion to Art p.259 "Affective reactions in laboratory conditions to isolated simple colours divorced from practical significance are necessarily artificial and their bearing, if any, on the artistic problem of colour is problematic."

Ruskin, p.262 Oxford C to A "We must consider nature purely as a mosaic of different colours which we ought to imitate quite simply as one alongside the other."

See Michel-Eugene Cheverail "The Principles of Harmony and Contrast of Colours" OCA p.261

Read Newton and Goethe on colour.

Colour is spatial, while sound is temporal.

Blackwell companion to aesthetics p.442 "For Wilde (Oscar), as later for Welson Goodman, art is 'a way of world-making' and art a mirror of something already in place."

In terms of perspective, our notion of privileged spatial position, is proximity privileged?

Heidegger: the hermeneutic circle.

Relational Materialisation: the ontological circle. (There is no escape from relation).

Time and contrast. The Penguin History of Philosophy p.94 Augustine. " 'What is time?' Adding that he knows perfectly well until someone asks him (a predicament that he whole host of other philosophers have found themselves in). The problem arises from the notions of past, present and future, the present in particular causing rouble because of the inclination to think of it as a knife-edge between past and future; and yet the past and future, in a sense, are not. On the other hand without the notions of the past, present and future we do not have time or temporal passage, in effect we have only eternity."

p.94 "Time is a subjective phenomenon"

Being shaped by environment. The Oxford Book of English Prose, p.432. William Makepeace Thackeray "They come into the place, let us sing, like ordinary people, and gradually grow handsomer and handsomer." A Little Dinner at Triamins, 1848

Derrida, Magnus of Philosophy, Differance p.16 "The system of differences" = contrastive matrix.

p. 17 "Force itself is never present it is only a play of difference between forces; and hence the difference of quantity counts more than the content of the quantity, more for the absolute size itself." Quantity itself, therefore, is not separable from the difference of quantity. The difference of quantity is the essence of force the relation of force to force."

Rather essence here, Derrida should have said empty centre.

p.25 "There is no essence of difference.."

Sunlight calibrates the contrastive magnitude of objects within the world contrastive matrix. We see this in flights of fancy in thought that occur during the evening time, and why sleep usually occurs in the evening.

The notion of a sine wave length in theory of light. If a high pressure 'wave' is followed by a low pressure 'wave' in the sound range, and the differential in size between the high and low pressure waves are very small, then it is known as a sine wave.

This notion of a sine wave makes me rethink my notion of optimal contrastive differential. I was thinking of the most effective differential to be the largest for a particular point. However, the notion of sine wave has made me rethink.

The most effective differential is the smallest. The point at which the contrastive magnitudes of the Bionoetic and the actualiser are differentiated to the smallest degree.

The heterogeneous homogeneity between the Bionoetic and the actualiser results in an equilibration (almost) when the contrastive magnitude of the Bionoetic is close to that of the actualiser. They are the right relation of similarity and difference between the Bionoetic and the actualiser to effect a successful relational materialisation.

Therefore, the optimal contrastive differential can be renamed the 'sine differential'.

See R. Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow p.69-70

Homogeneous homogeneity: God

Heterogeneous heterogeneity: chaos

(Brendan Higgins)

Relational Materialisation operates on a higher plane of utility to the nascency of contrast.

Atomistic logic (Relational materialisation) is a close, more approximate scaffolding from which to view reality. Process logic is the bridge that gets you there.

However: "...the atomic hypothesis also describes processes..." Six Easy Piece, R. Feynman p.10

Atomistic logic can be useful for describing processes, and so both types of logic are not entirely dispensable.

The goal of the philosopher is not to articulate insights, but to construct an edifice, through words, that mirrors the world. This is essentially the genius of Shakespeare.

One must speak of change rather than time.

The myth of Oedipus should and must be supplanted in the theoretical hegemony by the myth of Narcissus.

To express a lack of essence 'Non internally existing'.

Understanding leads to freedom. Intro: This thesis asks one simple question: how?

Crime and Punishment p.144 Raskalnikov murders two women and subsequently loses his grip on sanity, and has his heart dry up. This is a perfect example of the Bionoetic 'falling out of being' once the contextualising contrastive matrix has been disrupted. Raskalnikov’s's Entelechy field has been ruptured through his act, and  hence the nascency of contrast sustaining his existence has subsided to a large extent. The actualisers in his Entelechy Field have been reduced in number, and he has begun to 'fall out of being'.

The Memoirs of Casanova: Casanova's memoirs are so 'Psychologically insistent". (Oxford companion to English Lit. 'Casanova') because of the success of his Entelechy Field in relationally materialising him. He knows so many dignitaries, and seduced so many women, that his entelechy field is providing the means for a very strong ego.

The theory E=MC2 does not disprove the 'surface' theory (as explained by Wittgenstein's duck/rabbit [see my Foucault paper]). That so much energy is contained in matter, and that it does not seem to do so, does not entail that such energy is concealed or hidden, but rather that the surface matter is expressive of this energy, in the entirety of its surface appearance. To see as so we must simply remove ourselves from the normal frame of reference that conditions our perceiving of the matter. We must look at the matter from 'outside the perspectival framework' from which we normally perceive matter. And then we will see that such large amounts of energy are in fact manifest on the surface of matter, not 'hidden' underneath. Understanding requires perspectival shifts, not subterranean explorations.

Philosophers on the status of time. New Scientist, 2106 p.34 p.35 "Human Being, however, always observe just the universe, so sometimes the act of making an observation provokes nature into making a choice between contrasting realities."

This accords with the circularity of contrast between the Bionoetic and the actualisers in its Entelechy Field (in the surrounding contrastive matrix).

The arrows indicate the operation of the actualiser as a contrastive juncture, being actualised in relation to other objects in the surrounding contrastive matrix.

It does of course work the other way:

The vertical line represents reality. The horizontal, the spectrum of possibilities (or rather impossibilities, as reality is actual and is not potential). The centre part is absolute voidness, where there...(see Nagarjuna on suchness).

The above diagram posits a symmetry in the universe as its defining feature (admittedly a slight a-symmetry). Quantum physics agrees.

p.38 NS

"A more promising explanation proposed a few years ago by Murray Gell-Mann from Caltech and James Hartle from the University of California at Santa Barbra, accepts that observed universe is asymmetric and appears to quantum theory to explain it.

Time as a static 'rising and falling' which is change, rather than temporal directionality. The present is all there is because the rising and falling occurs within it, not through it as the directionality of time does. All is flux, rather than all is movement. Movement is flux viewed through a glass darkly.

NS p.53 Russell Church "Now is obvious that a sense of time is something the brain must actively construct, there are questions to answer."

Structures in the brain may determine perception, intuition. Loops in brain biology may induce theories of 'eternal return'.

A word 'resonates' with its object.

Plate discusses atomistic logic and process logic p.336 The Republic "It's probably in this sort of course then," I said, "That the mind calls in reasoning and thought, and tries to investigate whether one object has been reported to it or two." "Certainly" "And if the answer is two, is not each of the pair a separate entity?" "Yes." "And if each is a separate entity, and between them they make up two, then mind will perceive two separate entities, for if they weren't separate it wouldn't perceive two but one." (This is sometimes a product of process logic) (Italics mine). "That is correct." "But sight, we said, perceives large and small as qualities which are not distinct but run into each other." "Yes, so we said." "And to clear the matter up thought must adopt the opposite approach and look at large and small as distinct and separate qualities, a reverse process of sensation." "True."

Language structures trauma thought, keeps it at bay.

Blake's "Seven Stages of Dismal Woe" are akin to my six steps of epistemic self reflexivity. Blake's seven stages describe a building down from primeval prelapsarian bliss. My six stages are a building up into a world. See Milton, plate 2.

Blake's 'spiritual four-fold' and Heidegger's 'four fold'. A comparison? Milton plate 4

The Buddha described Nirvana as a city. Is this akin to Blake's Jerusalem? There are other similarities.

Do a little more on difference and my work. To differ and to be different. To be dispersed, to contrast, and to be heterogeneously homogeneous.

There must be an amendment to epistemic self reflexivity. Organic materials are made from the same materials as inorganic: Hence there must be a void/hylic/organic/bionoetic contrastive juncture.

The progress of ESR is the progress from physics to chemistry to biology to psychology.

Animals have nerves, plants do not (criteria). Living things are made of cells.

Develop a theory of chemical reaction based on Contrastive Analytics.

The Krebs cycle. Molecules change from one to another in a sequence (process logic) rather than in small steps. This could be a beginning for an understanding of molecular processes using Contrastive Analytics.

Contrastive Analytics is the move from:

physics to

chemistry to                       

biology to

psychology to

anthropology to

ontology to

metaphysics                       

and back again

Earthquakes are caused by differences in temperatures in the currents below the earth's surfaces. This is a great analogy to describe the nascency of contrast.  Sine differentials between the constitutional components of a contrastive matrix cause the 'arising into being' of objects within it. The differential between magnitudes of these objects creates the conditions for their existence.

The possibility of a law of Contrastive Analytics. The size of sine differentials and contrastive magnitudes in respect to the nascency of contrast.

Quote from Feynman p.49,31,30,23.

The study of waves in physics will be very important for Contrastive Analytics. As will colour theory (with physics and philosophy).

Relation moves the I think to the I do. John MacMurry.

A contrastive magnitude is a relational potential.

Dasein down grades the notion of relation to more of an explanatory one to be distinguished with contrast.

The a person’s world can become driven by idea’s.

Taxonomic lines of demarcation can be explained in terms of heterogeneous homogeneity. Non -life is different to life, but the in between entity maintains similarities to both. Heterogeneous homogeneity is a bridging concept to explain in between entities.

Science has the small picture, philosophy must reclaim the big picture.

Research into psychological understanding of brain mechanisms. The back and forward dynamic of perception. Perception is a two way street.

The contrastive magnitude of an actualiser is not absolute. It can fluctuate according to the constitution of the contextualising contrastive matrix. If a different Bionoetic contrasts with the same actualiser, that actualisers contrastive magnitude will be different. It will of course also establish a different sine differential than within the original Bionoetic.

Entelechy Field = Materialisation Field. Actualiser better than materialiser (resonances of ontological substantiality).

Heterogenous Homogeneity.  A term that describes the Nascency of Contrast and the lack of ontological substantiality that it implies:
Hegemony = Emptiness

Heterogeneous Homogeneity ---> Homogeneous Heterogeneity ---> Heterogeneous Heterogeneity ---> Homogeneous Homogeneity ---> Hegemony = Emptiness.

GLOSSARY

Where a term has been changed in the course of the theories development, its old form is given in brackets.

Actualiser (substantialiser) – Each person maintains a surrounding context that ensures the continued grounds for their arising into being.  This context is constituted by its mundane surrounds (proximal objects in the world), as well as things of interest (art, people, nature etc).  Each of these entities is an ‘actualiser’ in that they provide the grounds for that person to continually move from potentiality to actuality.

Atomistic Logic – A logic that reveals atoms, differentiation, and sharp distinction of ontological categories in observed phenomena.

The Bionoetic – Cartesian dualism is a helpful framework from which to view the human being.  People have minds, and they have bodies, and there is a difference between them.  Contrastive Analytics describes the human being as ‘the Bionoetic’ – ‘bio’ meaning biological, and ‘noetic’ meaning intellection.

Contrastive Juncture – The point at which an entity arises into being is a contrastive juncture.  It is a juncture where the broader contrastive matrix has established the correct differential within itself for the arising of an entity.  This differential is effected through the contrast of other entities within the contrastive matrix.

Contrastive Magnitude – Every entity maintains a certain ‘magnitude’.  This magnitude is the measure of the size of the influence in the surrounding context that it maintains.  This influence will provide the grounds of the possibility of the arising of other entities within that context.

Contrastive Matrix – The world is a contrastive matrix in that it is a matrix of differentials between entities that contrast.  Each entity in the world is a point at which the contrast between other entities in the world has established through the magnitude of their differential between them.

Epistemic Self-reflexivity – The world is a movement toward understanding.  An initial state of voidness disassociates itself from itself so as to have a distance from itself.  This distance gives rise to a ‘space’ that allows voidness to perceive itself in its own differentiated self.

Entelechy Field (materialisation field) – Each person maintains a surrounding context that provides the grounds for the possibility of its progress from potentiality to actuality.  This context is constituted by mundane objects and entities of interest.

Heterogeneous Homogeneity – Entities in the world display difference between each other.  They also display similarity.  There is therefore a certain ‘similarity-in-difference’ that is evident.  Contrastive Analytics describes this a heterogeneous homogeneity, prioritising difference over similarity.

The Nascency of Contrast – An entity arises into being, or is born, through its contrast with other entities.  The later entity establishes a differential between itself and its context, a differential that provides the grounds of the possibility of the former entity arising into being.

Process Logic – A logic that reveals emptiness, contextual priority, similarity-in-difference and ontological intimacy in observed phenomena.

Relational Materialisation – An entity arises into being through its relation to other entities.  It is materialised from a state of potentialised voidness through merely being in relation.

 Sine Differentials (contrastive differentials) – The contrastive magnitude of an entity establishes a differential between itself and its surrounding context.  This differential is the mechanism that facilitates the arising of a entity into the world.  The more equilibrious the differential, the greater the effectiveness of the contrastive nascency.