Though mentioned only in passing in part 1, the matter of truth as relates to consciousness is of paramount importance. But for now, foregoing a fuller investigation of that relationship, can we return to the matter of consciousness with even the dimmest of hopes for its understanding?
It is, to say the least, a slippery matter to aim toward any definition, no? After all, don’t we use our consciousness in attempting any definition of it? Is there any place imaginable where a thing is not defined in terms of observation from some “elsewhere” that is not the thing itself? What is meant by this? Simply that to know a thing to such extent as being able to define it implies the necessity of standing apart from it to know all its limits.
We define words, and often exhaustively. There may be listings from most common usage to the most arcane or nuanced of their use, but attempt is made to cover all their possible employments. And when we are satisfied to every possible usage in any possible situation or reference for their propriety, we call them defined. And there is also a generally accepted codicil to not use the word itself in definition of it itself.
But even here we see the issue. Words are defined by, or in terms of, “other” words. If there is no fundamental understanding that words have meaning in the limits of their use, definition is impossible to relate. In that sense it should not be difficult to understand that any defining of consciousness becomes exquisitely tortuous. For even all the words we may use to define or seek to relate as to it, or any understanding of its being as to what it is, both come from, and are in service to, consciousness. And in that sense we are using consciousness…to define consciousness. It is as helpful to us then, as if we searched for the meaning of the word “think” we are left with no more than “it means what is happening when one is thinking”.
Yet, we are not stopped by this, are we? No, not in the least…are we? But we do find that as we deal with the most fundamental of matters (is consciousness a thing?) we simply hold to all a priori(s) as to a thing’s being…even if totally unable to define. In fact…we “use” a thing for which, and with which yet, having no suitable definition, we do all our business.
If we dare consider it as tool that we do “use” (are you using yours, now?) even in all of not knowing its proper utility, could we not be like a man who props up a 1 inch short leg of a table with a hammer while vainly trying to drive nails with a piece of wood one inch thick? A ridiculous example, yes.
And the weakness of such argument is understood. Any man at any time is able to say “Consciousness is a thing I have, and not a thing I use. Or, “I am a conscious being. It is not a tool for use at all but the fundamental matter from which all and anything that might even be described as tool, arises.” But isn’t that then, even as, or more ridiculous than the example given of the hammer? For to see in any way the use of consciousness to any end, even if, or as fundamental matter of forming all other “tools” is a declaration of its use. Even usage.
And if, in the above, a man would describe (even define(?)!) himself as “a conscious being” that is having consciousness, to what would he have comparison for such definition? How odd on the ear, if he so chose to say would be “Well, as compared to that rock there that is an unconscious being”. It is odd on the ear, because it is odd on the mind. Do I get too far afield? It is odd to so “not” attribute consciousness to a rock (do you doubt it has being?) but might sound righter(?) to so say “Well, at least as compared to that amoeba”?
What might be inferred (if anything) from the above, even if one is convinced this may be going too far afield? Might it not be that to whatever measure, it requires consciousness to recognize “not consciousness” or judge it as absent, or (even!) lesser possessed? A chimp makes tools. And therefore, and no less, consciousness is required to recognize even…consciousness, and yes, even in another. Therefore is it so odd to say consciousness stands in witness to consciousness? And again, and no less, in judgment of its absence? Or “lesser” having?
And if I say “Boy, does it ever!” would an exuberance be betrayed? Displayed?
Listen if you can, or will. I am happy to be caught here! And even if need be say, trapped here. As a witness of consciousness in some holding of consciousness. I cannot escape…and now would not, and dare not even think I could. Consciousness has placed me in a place inescapable. I no longer doubt its reality…and yes, even to some describing of it as a real thing if one can bear that defining. Is this become too mysterious? Too obtuse? I think not to any who have been led to wonder/question/ponder about either the nature of reality (is there a nature of reality?) as to what is essentially true of it…or even if anything is…real at all. One road is open, one ineffably shut. For even if all doubt is all embraced to all consumption to its plainest end of “Nothing is real” that statement is self abnegating in all. For it plainly implies that there yet remains a “real” to which all is even being consigned to “as not”. Are you trapped as I? Are you yet exuberant?
Finding “real” is, is no small joy to the soul. Even this real…trap. For now some advance beyond mere assumption and presumption is made possible. There is “real” to work from. And are men loaded with assumptions and presumptions of many things they are either forbidden in exploration of or find by fear they dare not…explore?
Are you glad yet to be trapped in consciousness as yet even by consciousness?
As only the greater can capture a lesser? Can you even believe you are not the judge of it? Even if till now you have thought yourself so? To what (and whom) shall we witness?
israelx7wordpresscom 