Betrayers of Consciousness (pt.10)

“He used the very gun given him by his father to maliciously execute his father”, the prosecutor declared.

No, you are not re-reading part 9. There was some attempt in that section (9) to establish that motive and intent, by will exercised to some consequence, leaves the “alone man” (of only molecules in consciousness?) a certain quandary regarding his sense of justice.

And justice, that is our sense of “fairness” executed in judgment for consequence upon an object (no less a function of “our” consciousness) consumes much of our considerations. We’ve built whole legal systems for its handling. We often deal with one another according to it. Might this and these things, of the matters we call man’s law, and rules of judgment, no less show themselves with false foundation?

Again we seek not any proving of God in these reasoning(s), but only that by, and even in, any reasoning confined to those foundations upon which these systems are established can “hold water” within themselves by their own reasoning(s) for being. Are they consistent…and tight?

Any mention of God is held as appeal to those already established in some conviction of His being, but in all, there is recognition no thing based solely in or on “material”, even man’s most exquisite reasoning(s) and so called wisdom in clay establishes Him. In truth it always works not only counter to that, but even counter to man himself. Even that man’s reasoning can dis-annul his assumed (and presumptuous) properties of reason if left solely to himself for their establishing.

For if investigated thoroughly all matters of consciousness in its weights and measures, especially of judgments and a thing called justice are always and only particular to any one man. His agreement with others to the extent he allows does neither make these true nor right. All he has is agreement with himself or within himself (even if offered to others); but we might also understand truth is never a matter of consensus. A man either holds it or doesn’t, other’s agreement matters not a whit.

Otherwise the world would have been flat in 400 AD, mysteriously changing sometime thereafter.

So, in considering the matter of justice, particularly in regard to motive(s) man is very much left in the dark, for unless he can discern motive and intent (are these functions or faculties of consciousness also “real” things?) for in certain circumstance the law of man takes them into account, in others, they can be dismissed as unnecessary.

It is so often strange how man seeks to have things “both ways”, for there is an exclusivity (if reason also be a true thing) that if a thing is unnecessary to a thing, to that thing it is then always unnecessary. Yet we still hold “murder” and “attempted murder” wholly separate by their consequence, with motive assumed same. Or, in one instance a man is arrested for graffiti, in another a hate crime on a synagogue, just fashioning some knots, or displaying a noose.

And how many times have any heard repeated this legal nostrum: “The prosecution does not have to prove motive(s)”? Yet, in other circumstance it is more than willing to delve into what it imagines they are. For if motive is in all unnecessary in certain circumstance, it cannot then be called upon in other circumstance as added weight or for added weight for attribution of greater guilt. But it is. Always, and in contradiction of what it even embraces as first principles.

First and second degree murder, and manslaughter. (A dead body is the only fact)

Graffitti vs. hate crime. (Some forms painted or scribbled upon another’s property is only fact)

Yes, we get all mixed up in motive and consequence. God, not so much. He doesn’t have to “wait” on consequence, for He sees all motive from the beginning. Indeed, ultimately He is all motivator. But again, I am not seeking to provide proof. One has either had His proof made to them within and to themselves, or…not yet.

If it appears a pompous reach that both part 9 and 10 began with the same sentence, I little doubt some already hold some sense as to its salience. Man so often (have you found it so?) uses his consciousness (with reason and logic attributed) to, by these, both reason and logic…exclude God from the consciousness…in short “do away with Him”.

Obviously no man can kill God, but if intent is so, and God sees all intent…what difference? And if there is a proposition offered that God is Himself giver of consciousness in clay (again, no proof provided nor attempted) then such “turning of a given thing” against the giver is of some consequence…even if by no consequence possible: “no man can kill God”, even with all intent. A failed murderer is a murderer, nonetheless. And Jesus had much to expound upon in this regard to “law” when speaking of adultery, and where it truly takes place. And murder also. Motive and intent are not changed in nature because circumstance is either not favorable nor found. Nor even under threat of punishment. Behavior may be; but nature? No.

Why such a foray into matters of seeming legalities, jurisprudence, questions of motives and intents when it seems consciousness was presented on the table for consideration?

Besides the fact as mentioned, that man has fashioned legal systems for determinations of certain matters with whole apparatus’ devoted to prosecution and defenses, rules of evidence, admissibilities vs inadmissibilities, calling of witnesses, standings and testimonies; it is all structured after some fashion for determination of a thing called truth. Murderers, fraudsters, thieves, assaulters may sometimes admit to their offenses, yet often they do not.

And if truth of matters (as so many of man’s endeavors seem concerned with finding it, believing it to be “there” as a real thing to even be found, in sciences, belabored studies of history, maths, legalities, philosophies) the very largeness of these structures so devoted; their intricacies and abundant rules of operation point to a certain matter belieing what many or even most men individually hold to their own heart…”I know the truth when I hear it, or see it”.

Really?

So the question then remains, if truth be pursued as a “real” thing to be found, uncovered, even known (in consciousness)…is consciousness a real thing?

Do you think it impossible a man might might recognize a false answer?