Epistemology in the tradition of
by Uwe Flemming
Do you want to read this in German?
Mr. Uwe Flemming`s philosophical work ďSabatieuĒ is very intelligently written. The ambitious young man attempts to compare Immanuel Kant`s Theory of mutual dependency between transcendental apperceptions and basic awareness with the central processing unit of a computer and its numerous algebraic operations. In our developing society such thoughts can be looked upon as incentive for further research, especially as regards ďNeurophysiology, Philosophy of the Mind, Evolutionary theory of Cognition, etc.Ē That is why Mr. Flemming`s ideas are both interesting and important. Pertaining to the subjects mentioned, there might be a new ďlatestĒ level in the near future.
Dr. Erhard BUSEK
Former Vice-Chancellor of Austria and Head of the ministry of the sciences
The main subjects of this research are as follows:
†What does the process of cognition comprise?
From which the following question arises:
†What is our cognitive faculty made of?
From which the next question arises:
†What can we achieve with our cognitive faculty?
Sabatieu is divided into three parts:
The Prologomena describes in short the main ideas of the research done.
In Part I we look for ever valid conclusions and conditions. This task is based on the outcome of a great number of experiences. We also deal with a wide range of questions, some of them are of quite a controversial nature. The reason of doing so is to find at least some conclusions and conditions of permanent validity.
In Part II we build up on the results achieved, thus being able to prove that there are several new aspects of philosophical thoughts concerning criticism of knowledge. The passage does not include many exemples because abstract thinking is in the foreground. Part II is the center of our work, we present irrevocable results acting as proof of our research.
a way of thinking
if you wish to read ďProlegomenaĒ in German, go to:
Thanks to Immanuel Kant and his Categories we realize that we will never be able to see the world as it really is. We make the world to what our Categories enable us to. It means that it is not the world which forces us to see it its way, on the contrary, we define the world the way it appears to us.
We share Kant`s point of view, but we discovered facts that build up on Kant`s achievement.
Imagine you visit filmstudios in Florida. You face a wall with two holes and you are made to look through them. A light illuminates two houses, the rest of the room is pitch-black. You have no idea about the size of the room beyond the wall with the holes. One house is double the height of the other. The width of both is the same and their balconies, each as wide as the other, cover half of the width of the respective facade.
Apart from knowing that our house is double the height of the other, we do not know the real height of the houses, we are totally at a loss to define the exact height of the buildings. Consequently we assume that our sensory organs are not programmed to give exact measurements. However, when a person moves to the site and remains standing in front of the houses, we are suddenly aware of the approximate height of either house.
The question arises as to the factor responsible for our sudden awareness of size and dimension. We deduce from the given situation that the ability to use a graded system to measure things must be inborn, so whenever it is needed, it gets automatically released.
Because of our inner scale we are capable of creating the following:
1st† Power of comparison
2nd Numerical series
And what is the purpose of the abilities mentioned above? After some careful thinking we came to the conclusion that they are the tools or means to define whatever there is in our world.
Let us give an example by asking you to look at a tree. First and foremost you see the tree as a whole, its oneness is a Unit. Then it is a Numerical Series, e.g. one branch is a third of the length of the trunk and its circumference is a quarter of the trunk`s circumference. Finally we use Comparison because all the differences regarding length, thickness, etc. of branches, twigs and leaves have to be brought into relation with one another in order to get an overall impression of the tree.
Once more: The three abilities mentioned enable us to define exactly whatever there is in our world. In addition there is another ability within us. We call it CPUgeneral as it combines the three abilities dealt with above all the time. CPU-general creates new units and numerical series, it also compares all its creations with each other, thus presenting us the world we experience day by day.
Another example: A tree is reality for us. A blind man cannot see it, but should he run against it, he is sure to be aware of its reality.
An interesting thought: The tree is real because CPU-general puts together the three abilities within us. When reality is created within us, why is it possible for other people to feel the same?
The only possible answer is: In relation to the reality, each person`s CPUgeneral combines the identical assimilations as all the other person`s CPUgeneral do.
If I go to London and see the city as everybody else does, it is so because any change has been registered by my CPUgeneral even before I arrived in London. It happened without my being aware of it. It means that whatever happens, everybody stores this experience without knowingly or actively doing anything about this process.
Decisions are influenced by the experiences we have
To get impressions we need more than our sensory organs only
Inborn assimilations change any outside objects, which our sensory organs registered, into impressions
Original-assimilations create all other assimilations
At least all people have identical assimilations
CPUgeneral is active within us. A faculty capable of combining the information given by our sensory organs with assimilations in order to get impressions. It also combines assimilations with one another to obtain more complex units.
Describing reality, mankind is in unison because we have identical assimilations and each person`sCPUgeneral, which is capable of combining various assimilations with the information obtained from our sensory organs to impressions, combines identical assimilations. Speaking of reality, the CPUgeneral of each and every man performs likewise.
Space is an original-assimilation. Whether reality or not, whenever we get an experience, space is there.
Time is another original-assimilation. It accompanies each experience, whether connected with reality or non-reality. Only man`s very first experience can do without original-assimilation Time.
Only via assimilations can we draw conclusions and get experiences. Only assimilations can give an exact and accurate description of any object in our world.
AFF is the faculty of man to notice the Assimilations, which means man becomes aware of what CPUgeneral carried into effect
The activities of CPUgeneral create various Assimilation-combinations which are reflected by the AFF. This process creates experiences.
Original-assimilation Time is nothing else than the activity of the CPUgeneral and the reflection of this activity by the AFF
The original-assimilations Time and Space make experiences possible. Further original-assimilations are needed to differentiate the experiences
The activity of CPUgeneral is called Unity of the Self. The activity of the CPUgeneral and its reflection by the AFF create awareness. That means being aware of being an individual and having the chance of innumerable experiences
In addition, the Unity of the Self is the material for all our experiences. Unity of the Self is the original-assimilation. Each Assimilation consists of various Unities of the Self combined with one another, that is all. The original-assimilation Space is nothing but the effect of the existence of the Unity of the Self
Man creates his world. The performance of our CPUgeneral and AFF make this wonder possible
Decisions are influenced by the experiences we have
Any form of an impression is referred to us as an experience. It is irrelevant whether we speak of a real experience or a personal (subjective) feeling. A sudden thought, an emotion, a wish - they will be called experiences just as it is with real experiences. Both are listed under the same heading.
Decisions are real decisions only if you get the choice of at least two possibilities. As this choice is given, there must be reasons why we accept one possibility and reject the others. Independent of the many reasons for a person`s decision, one thing is crystal clear. Every decision is made because of certain experiences. When you make a decision you hope to get special experiences in return. On the other hand, you make a decision because of present and past experiences. By the way, apart from experiences, there is nothing we feel touched or mouved by.
We can have numerous experiences. Whatever we feel, whatever touches us emotionally are experiences. In addition we have certain faculties that enable us to have these experiences. In form of experiences we learn about these faculties.
Of what substance are the faculties that help us to get experiences and are responsible for everything we feel, think and take in?
To get impressions we need more than our sensory organs only
Imagine you are in film studios in Florida. There you are made to look through an opening in a wall into an absolutely dark room. The opening is big enough for your head only. Any movement of your head is impossible. Suddenly a faint light is switched on and you make out 4 buildings. The rest of the room is in darkness. You are able to admire the buildings and experience what they look like. However, you are sure to have difficulties to state the exact height of the buildings. Just a wild guess is possible. You definitely cannot know whether it is centimetres, some metres or a considerable amount of metres which make up the height of the buildings.
This fact encourages us to learn more about it, to get to the core of it. The information given by your sensory organs does not contain anything about the real dimensions of the buildings. The width of the balcony and facade is unknown to you. You might just realize that the balcony is half the width of the facade. When a stage hand moves out of the dark and stands in front of the buildings, you suddenly realize that one building is double the height of the man, the other buildings are even four times his height, thus you have get a more distinct idea of the respective size of the buildings.
Because of the capability just mentioned a most interesting question asks for an answer: Who informed you about the dimensions? You might say that knowing the approximate height of the stage hand made you compare it with the buildings, so dimension and size became more easy to estimate.
In spite of your having some idea about measurements, the answer to the question is still unsatisfactory.
After some intense thinking we realize that neither the stage hand nor the buildings looked at seperately, convey anything about size and dimensions. Our sensory organs are not designed to give any information regarding measurements.
Concerning the stage hand, should he be asked to stand perfectly motionless in front of the buildings when the light illuminates the site, he might be mistaken for a wax figure whose size is unknown.
No object seen in the room, least of all the air in the room, can cause our sensory organs to supply us automatically with information as regards size and dimensions. That is why we must conclude that we have got some inborn faculties which are capable of stating size and dimensions.
The faculties in question compare things and know the right proportions, e.g., stage hand compared to the house with balcony equals 1 to 2. Only because these faculties are activ while our sensory organs are in operation, we are able to define size and dimensions.
It may be that you think you know about size and dimensions from experience. After all, you have been taught the average height of a person. However, even in that case you could not have stated accurate dimensions without your inborn faculties. The analysis of your experience in the film studios does not allow for another conclusion.
The fact that we are able to make comparisons and numerical series proves that we are also able to form units. Because only if we are able to form units - that means to make smaller units into bigger ones - are we capable of making comparisons and numerical series. Thus to form units is an equally important inborn quality, too.
This discovery encourages further thinking. We realize that most important and outstanding features of objects are not given to us by the objects themselves. We ourselves connect the objects with their special features. Should we have to state size and dimensions of objects wherever they may be, we now know it is not the object that informs us about its measurements; the work is done by our inborn faculties.
Three buildings are of the same height, the fourth is half the height of the others. Their roofs form a slight angle above the facade and at the sides. The buildings stand close to each other. The first building on the left has two floors. All windows look alike, they are arranged in three horizontal rows of four windows each. The windows are rectangular at† the bottom, at the top each window has a semicircle. The space between the windows is half the size of the window itself. The impression you have of the house is a special sensation. Because of its proportions and the way the decorations are placed around the windows, the house is quite different from the other buildings.
The difference lies in the shape of the windows and their proportions in relation to the building as a whole and the diverse decorations. The decorations consist of a number of straight, crooked and curved lines whose forms and length show great variety.
When each line and curve is added to other lines and curves we eventually get a huge unit and we can see the building as it is. It goes without saying that this process is only possible because of our faculties to compare, form units and numerical series.
Only because of our inborn faculties can we have experiences. The information given by our sensory organs is of less importance.
Whatever we want to know, feel and see in life, we need our inborn faculties to fulfil our wishes.
The exact analysis of our experience in the film studios proved the presence of our inborn faculties. Remember we could not define size and dimension of any object shown there. Our sensory organs on their own were incapable of obliging, so it is our inborn faculties which are the most important factors to reach our aim. We repeat once more: To realize a definite length, you have to create units first, then they get compared with each other by forming numerical series. The object itself says nothing about its length, so all particles that make up the knowledge of the true length must be within us, as inborn talent.
Experiencing the above mentioned phenomenon was of great importance to us. It set the ball rolling and stimulated us to continue our research work.
Inborn Assimilations change any outside objects, which our sensory organs registered, into impressions
Assimilations is the term used for the faculties performing the task just mentioned. Assimilations make all of an object exept what our sensory organs take in.
Each of our sensory organs (sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch) needs the Assimilations we are talking about. Without them there would be no comparing and no combining of numerical series to create units. And we would not know which instrument is responsible for the sound we hear. Neither would we be aware of duration or pitch of a tone. The senses of touch and taste would also be without any distinguishing qualities. Listing what we cannot do without Assimilations is likely to become a never ending story.
As we have the faculty to form units and because we are encountered by a great variety of objects daily, it goes without saying that each of the objects not only gives information to our sensory organs, but consists of distinctive inborne Assimilations as well.
Original-assimilations create all other Assimilations
Just as complex numerical series can be divided into combinations of smaller numbers, more complex combinations of Assimilations can be made less complex, too. However, there must be certain limits we should be aware of.
Original-assimilations cannot be devided, but they can be combined with other Assimilations.
In order to realize a house means we have to build up a complex combination of Assimilations, which is a process we are never conscious of. When we don`t take into consideration the information of our sensory organs, it is the complex combination of Assimilations that remain.
The result of the above observation leads to the conclusion that the impression of the house as a whole, each proportion and shade of colour, aesthetic aspects, etc. are only possible because of the combinations of numbers and units.
The combination of Assimilations making up the house consists of a vast amount of units which get compared with each other, then by means of a number system they are brought in relation to each other. The next process includes putting all units together till at last there is a huge unit left. This unit contains all Assimilations necessary for the Assimilation-combination typical for the house in question.
Whether or not the faculties to form units, compare and combine numerical series are Assimilations or original-assimilations has not been found out so far.
At least all people have identical Assimilations
All man share the same views concerning certain objects, e.g. they realize that a normal bike is not as long as a lorry and their forms and measurements differ. Such an attitude is obvious proof that our Assimilations are identical, and when we come across the same object, the combinations of our Assimilations are the same.
We have no idea about the number of Assimilations. Whether a lot or only a few, it does not matter. What counts is the fact that reality is more or less the same for all human beings. Due to this fact, we have no other choise but to come to this conclusion: all human beings have the same Assimilations within them, and they use exactly the same Assimilation-combinations when confronted with the same object.
Let us look at an example that shows us what would happen if people did not use their identical Assimilation-combinations when confronted with the same object. In such a case the motorway Vienna - Salzburg would be a distance of 300km for the first driver. For the second driver - if he did not use the same Assimilation-combinations as the first driver - the distance would be 30 km only. And a third driver would be in Paris instead of Salzburg after a 30 km ride.
That means if every person facing the same objects had not used identical Assimilations, the object in question, in our case the motorway, would be of different length, and in spite of starting at the same time and driving at the same speed, each of the drivers would arrive in Salzburg at a different time.
In reality circumstances are different because all people facing the same objects use identical Assimilations, therefore each of the drivers when driving at the same speed will arrive at the same time, provided they also started at the same time. And as regards the length of the motorway, there is no difference of opinion.
CPUgeneral is activ within us. A faculty capable of combining the information given by our sensory organs with Assimilations in order to get impressions. It also combines Assimilations with one another to obtain more complex units.
Assimilations are combined with one another to form more complex units. Only a faculty that is superior to Assimilations can conduct this process. The faculty mentioned is in us, it is inborn, and as it controls the performance of Assimilations, it is definitely an inherited factor.
We experience a diversity of Assimilation-combinations during our life. That proves that combinations of various Assimilations are possible. And because all this happens within us, the decision which Assimilations to combine, is within us, too. The faculty which makes these decisions is th CPUgeneral.
CPUgeneral stands for Central Processing Unit. This faculty within us decides which Assimilation to combine with one another and then it executes its decisions.
As only the CPUgeneral decides, which Assimilations to combine, and we ourselves know from reality that all people describe one and the same object with their identical Assimilation-combinations, so we have no other choise but to conclude that taken the same reality for granted, the CPUgeneral of each person acts in accordance with the CPUgeneral of all other persons involved.
In short: The CPUgeneral combines various Assimilations with each other to bigger Assimilation-combinations, it combines the information received from the sensory organs with Assimilations in order to come to impressions, and it acts in respect to reality in accordance with the CPUgenerals of all other persons within reality.
Describing reality, mankind is in unison because we have identical assimilations and each person`sCPUgeneral, which is capable of combining various assimilations with the information obtained from our sensory organs to impressions, combines identical assimilations. Speaking of reality, the CPUgeneral of each and every man performs likewise.
Each and every person`s CPUgeneral is in his or her inmost self. When people face reality, the CPUgenerals of all of them give rise to identical Assimilations. We, therefore, conclude that all CPUgenerals perform likewise and are in accordance with one another concerning reality.
Space is an original-assimilation. Whether reality or not, whenever we get an experience, Space is there.
Space makes it possible to join units, but it does not give any information as to the quality of the unit. Without original-assimilation Space objects and experiences could not materialize. Original-assimilation Space cannot define the objects encountered or give details about experiences.
Original-assimilation Space has two important functions. It helps to build up Assimilations and it is an inborn phenomenon.
Original-assimilation Space is always there when Assimilations such as comparison, creation of numerical series and the formation of units, as well as their various combinations are in progress. Space allows for the possibility to join and put units next to each other, so its presence is essential. If Space were not there to allow for putting at least two units together, there could never be any comparison, combination of numerical series and creation of units.
As said before, Space is an essential part of our other three Assimilations. And because those three Assimilations are within us, Space has also to be within us.
Time is another original-assimilation. It accompanies each experience, whether connected with reality or non-reality. Only man`s very first experience can do without original-assimilation Time.
We define the term Time as follows: A chance for a change. Time itself is nothing real, but it makes things possible. That is why one experience can take the place of another or former experience. Details of any experience are not given by original-assimilation Time. Reality has taught us how different impressions can be. Each impression has its particular Assimilation-combinations, so any change from certain Assimilation-combinations to a different pattern involves Time. Let us deal with the three well known Assimilations once more. They can be put together in various ways. The process is within ourselves and Time is needed for this process. That proves that Time is within us, too. The fact that we need Time whenever we get the chance to have Assimilations put together shows that Time is quintessential for having experiences. That is why Time must necessarily be an original-assimilation.
Only via Assimilations can we draw conclusions and get experiences. Only Assimilations can give an exact and accurate description of any object in our world.
Let us look at the film studios once more. The faculties to compare units, combine numbers and create more and bigger units are inborn and suffice to describe buildings accurately.
Colours can be distinguished from one another by saying that a certain colour is double as bright as or three times darker than another colour. Any changes concerning shapes can also be measured exactly. When we enter the room and touch the buildings, we register the quality of the material selected to build them. Its hardness can be compared to other materials and we might describe it as three and a half times more resistant and five times rougher and more uneven than the material used near the opening. This definition is just one of the many definitions possible to describe the consistence of the buildings.
Once more we realize that the three Assimilations are adequate to give enough information in order to see the buildings as they really are.
When doctors declare that our sensory organs receive information from the buildings, they are right. But according to our definition the information received is nothing but a part of this object. A part that itself is only constructed due to the divers combination of Assimilations within ourselves! If we wanted to, we could state: the information of our sensory organs provoke the illusion to have a source independent of us. The truth is that† this information is nothing but a special Assimilation-combination, which has its origin in the work the CPUgeneral does within us.
AFF is the faculty of man to notice the Assimilations, that means, man becomes aware of what CPUgeneral carried into effect
Although CPUgeneral combines Assimilations, the Assimilations must also be noticed to become an experience. AFF is the faculty enabling us to register the effect of the CPUgeneral`s performance.
AFF are the first three letters of "affected". Because the expression has been found appropriate, we used the first three letters of the word to name a situation that entails a lot more than "affected" conveys.
AFF is a necessity.† CPUgeneral has the capability to create inummerable Assimilation-combinations. But we need a faculty, which enables us get aware of those Assimilation-combinations. Because to create something is quite different from to get aware of it.
The faculty to get to know what CPUgeneral has put together, is named AFF.
The activities of CPUgeneral create various Assimilation-combinations which are reflected by the AFF. This process creates experiences.
CPUgeneral on its own, is independent, that means outside, of every possible experience.
Because it is the creator of every possible experience - and with that everything we ever can hear, see, feel, think, etc. - CPUgeneral itself is not subject to any form of subjugation and it cannot be described in any way by Assimilation-combinations. Because CPUgeneral with the aid of AFF is the reason for every possible experience we can ever have, its creation - the experience - is not enough to state what the CPUgeneral really is. The phenomena "infinity" and "limitation" are also creations of CPUgeneral. And because of it, CPUgeneral is superior and second to none regarding the phenomena in question.
It is possible to conclude the existance of the CPUgeneral due to the fact that various Assimilation-combinations take place. But we never know what it really is.
The above stated is also valid for AFF.† The working together of† CPUgeneral and AFF is the reason for the existence of any form of experience. So no experience can state anything about the AFF as it really is, there is no access to it. It is, on its own, as independent and not describable as the CPUgeneral.
Original-assimilation Time is nothing else than the activity of the CPUgeneral and the reflection of this activity by the AFF
We get knowledge about the existence of the CPUgeneral due to its activities. It creates all experiences but it does not leave an experience about itself. But we can describe which effects it has in relation to us, that means in relation to living beings capable of having experiences.
Every activity the CPUgeneral executes in relation to us, is a perpetual performance. That is due to the fact that CPUgeneral itself is independent or outside of any form of experiences. And in relation to us it acts or it does-not-act.
Because CPUgeneral is creating experiences, it will do this forever. And because the original-assimilation Time must become part of every Assimilation-combination at least after the second experience, we can conclude that Time is nothing but the effect of the activities of the CPUgeneral.
The original-assimilations Time and Space make experiences possible. Further original-assimilations are needed to differentiate the experiences
To find out the specific original-assimilations necessary, we ask ourselves the following question: Which original-assimilations does man need to have his very first experience?
The activity of CPUgeneral is called Unity of the Self. The activity of the CPUgeneral and its reflection by the AFF create awarness. That means being aware of being an individual and having the chance of having innumerable experiences
Only that exists, what can be experienced. From the beginning of our existence onward, we must be aware of our own ourselves.
The experience man gets of himself has been brought forth by the creative activities of CPUgeneral which, as we know, can form units. As we have already shown, whatever CPUgeneral does, it does it forever. Whether or not CPUgeneral has materials for its units, is irrelevant. It goes on forming units nevertheless.
Although the CPUgeneral has no material for a person`s very first experience, it is capable of forming a unit. One unit is referred to us as Unity of the Self.
CPUgeneral as regards its activities has no limitations whatsoever, so even the very first experience of a person might be made up of countless Unities of the Self.
Wherever a unit is created, it is clear that something exists . Something that is responsible for the creation of the unit. The experience of the Unity of the Self proves the existance of a faculty, which is responsible for the creation of this Unit. We call this faculty awareness.
Awareness is the working together of CPUgeneral and AFF. This working together creates the experience of the Unity of the Self. The existence of such an experience proves the existence of awareness, or individuality.
So we can state: the coming together of CPUgeneral and AFF creates awarness, individuality.
In addition, the Unity of the Self is the material for all our experiences. Unity of the Self is the original-assimilation. Each Assimilation consists of various Unities of the Self combined with one another, that is all. The original-assimilation Space is nothing but the effect of the existence of the Unity of the Self
CPUgeneral creates Unities of the Self from the first experience onward. CPUgeneral forms units whether it has building material at its disposal or not. All types of units can be put together. By combining any Unities of the Self to get bigger units, the Unities of the Self themselves act as building materials. Bigger units can be building material for even bigger units, and so on.
The process mentioned above is sufficent to state that even our complex world is constructed in the same way.
Let us give an example. We look at a building made of squared sandstones, each of them is nothing but a special Assimilation-combination. If we crash such a stone, we get a lot of small particles differing in size, weight, colour, internal structure and in many other ways. All these differences can be measured by a special mathematical system. Even the smallest particle of the stone† can be called a unit. A detailed information about its contents is given. One unit might contain three sub-units, two of the three may be made up of two Unities of the Self each, whereas the third sub-unit consists of four Unities of the Self.
By means of the system described above differences can be defined exactly and the results are mathematically precise.
Some people might be of the opinion that such a mathematically precise system is good in virtual realities like constructing something on the computer or processing something within our mind, but that we are not allowed to state reality is build up the same way.
This opinion can be cut short. As we explained before, each experience is created by means of Assimilations which are the products of the working together of CPUgeneral and AFF. That means whatever there is in the world and all our inside experiences are created in our inmost self. The marked difference between these experiences is caused by a person`s CPUgeneral which is obliged to perform as the other person`s CPUgeneral do when facing reality.
Man creates his world. The performance of our CPUgeneral and AFF make this wonder possible
Although CPUgeneral and AFF cannot be described, we know that their team-work brings forth awareness. Every human being possesses these qualities and together with the qualities of other men, we are destined to build up our world.
The Unity of the Self is the smallest building-stone in our world. All other stones consist of Unity of the Self combinations. The building-stones making up reality are the same that create thoughts and feelings. The difference between reality on the one hand and thoughts and feelings on the other hand, has nothing to do with different building-stones. The CPUgeneral of each person is obliged to combine identical Assimilations in order to be in accordance with the CPUgeneral of all other persons dealing with real things within reality. However, this is not true of thoughts and feelings, which are made up of countless diverse Assimilations. Whatever one person does within our reality, everybody in our reality has to reproduce it as identical Assimilation-combination within himself. This is a law of our reality.
Each and everybody in our reality has in his inmost self everything whatever happened within the reality as unconscious Assimilation-combinations. This is proved by the fact that we are in agreement with all other persons in the description of the reality.
All men are the products of two faculties we can neither get to know nor describe. CPUgeneral and AFF do not reveal their true selves, but we are aware of their performances.
The working together of CPUgeneral and AFF has the possibility to make everything we can imagine real. Skills, which we link to God, are all achievable by everybody.
Whatever there is beyond the bond between CPUgeneral and AFF, we cannot comprehend. However, the fact is, there is something there.
Send him a link to this research work
Let your Browser start with EPISTEMOLOGY:
††††††††††† Who would think to design and build a house without having a basic knowledge of architetcure?† No structural engineer would be given permission to calculate the stability of skyscrapers could he not prove to have had the very minimum of background in this field.† The simplest of surgical procedures are only successful when he who holds the scalpel has successfully completed his medical training.† No one would practice any respectable profession without employing its necessary theoretical requirements (e.g. knowing what materials are needed to build a house, what the laws of statics are, or how the human body works).† If one were to proceed without this base knowledge, simple reality would immediately point out his error.
††††††††††† That is not to say that in the beginning, seen from an historical point of view, the fields of arcitecture, statics, and medicine did not follow the same line of empirical reason.† That is, one discovers the rules of the trade through trail and error, and the more practice, the more precise the results.
††††††††††† We have inherited the rules from previous generations, and so it follows that an ever increasing accumulation over time allows those of us who want to practice a particular field to draw from an abundance of theoretical knowledge.† This process seems to be a simple one that we have come to accept under the name of "education." It is so accepted, in fact, that it would never occur to anyone to challenge the belief: one learns the trade before one excercises it.† This all means, therefore, that we do not have to start again at the point where our forefathers once had to.
††††††††††† What is valid for doctors and architects is just as valid for every science of man.† Every scientist will first apply those laws he inherited before researching new ones.† And is it not just as true that all professions that require education or training have one thing in common:† before one works in the field of his choice, he will necessarily need to come to terms with those laws that regulate his pursuits.†
†††††††††††† He will further discover what exactly he can do with these laws (i.e. their use) and how far their boundaries lie (i.e. their limitations).† He knows, in other words, what tools he has before him, for what purpose they are made, and for which ends they were not designed.† A structural engineer knows where he can apply his knowledge and where it has relative meaning.† Equally, he realizes that his knowledge cannot be exerted in all fields, for instance, it will not allow him to carry out surgical procedures.
††††††††††† This principle, namely the ability to distinguish where one can apply his knowledge from where he cannot, is successfully utilized time and time again in everyday life.† No rational being would swim the ocean without† knowing how to swim, just as no one with common sense would attempt to walk through a moving vehicle as though it didnęt exist.
††††††††††† This brings us to the profession for which we were all designed.† One which we exercise continually, yet of whose instruments we hardly understand the real functions:† that of "Being."
†"Being" is the principle ability to do and be all that, which is somehow and sometime possible for us.† "Being" includes everything that we can undertake, everything that we busy ourselves with, and everything we can imagine doing and being (being active in "reality" as well as being subjective such as in thoughts, ideas, feelings, and even dreams).†
††††††††††† Just as "Being" is responsible for every activity we set into place, it is just as relevant for every job, every science, and for everything elso we do and are.† As we already established, individual jobs and activities demand special abilities or principles to be able to carry them out.† In order to do this, "Being" has created special sciences, which come to terms with the core requirements of particular activities.†
††††††††††† But it is the original and essential "Being" which assigns value to all careers and activities that concern us.† Only after this value has been established, does the ďBeingď create different sciences in order to deal with the chosen careers and activities in an adequate manner.
††††††††††† This means that a doctor must have the knowledge about the appropiate laws that apply to his specific field in order to be successful.† Success is measured, in the case of a doctor, by the ability to maintain the patientęs well-being or by bringing the patient† to health.† Failure is likewise expressed when health ailments cannot be brought under control, or in unfortunate cases, when careless treatment worsens the patientęs condition.† In order to have the opportunity of being a good doctor, ďBeingď created a science that deals with this field.† Namely medicine.
††††††††††† When we choose to examine "Being" more closely, we donīt intend to look at it to analyze its different form of sciences (e.g. what is required to become a successful doctor) that it created.
††††††††††† Rather, we need to analyze why and how "Being" leads to and is relative to everything we do (and in this way leads to every individual form of science).† We will investigate how the original and essential ďBeingď functions.† It is this part of the ďBeingď which gives everything that we are able to do its special meaning (activities in reality as well as those in a spiritual relm).
††††††††††† From this point of view, the question then becomes, why does one choose to become a doctor, and not what are the specific requirements of becoming one.
††††††††††† "Being" is, furthermore, expressed individually, whereby each person sets his own priorities.† It is the individual who chooses (though we have not yet established how this "self decision" functions in "actuality") which activities are important to him and which he will exercise.
††††††††††† In order to clarify which part of the ďBeingď (namely the original and essential ďBeingď) we need to look closer within our investigation.† Let us observe a simple chain of events within an individualęs day:†
††††††††††† A man, who has chosen a career in banking, passes another car going 55 mph on a city street, eats lunch at a fast-food joint, insults his colleagues back† at work, brings his wife flowers after work, and ends his day with his wife at the opera.† †††††††††††
††††††††††† In order to be a banker, he had to learn the specific laws of his profession.† To have been able to successfully pass his fellow driver, he must have had previous experience in estimating whether or not it was at all possible to pass in this situation; he must have learned the special laws† of "passing" in the city.† In order to eat fast-food for lunch, he had to know that such a thing existed and how to get there.† Once again, he had to follow learned rules.† To succeed in swearing at his colleagues, he must know that they will understand this behavior, and so again it is necessary for him to follow those rules belonging to this action.
† ††††††††† Quite clearly, every individual act listed made it necessary, as long as the individual wanted to be sucessful in doing these actions, to follow the approved rules.† Though some actions require more preparation than others, our bankeręs success in carrying out each of his actions was totally reliant on the "education" of laws and practice he was able to assemble before the point of action.
††††††††††† To correctly complete these actions,† "Being" has developed its own "science"† created for exactly this purpose.
††††††††††† † But it is the original and essential "Being" that plays the essential role in dictating the bankeręs choice to work in a bank as opposed to any number of other jobs.† Similarily, it is the original and essential "Being" that guided his belief that passing a car at 55mph was a better idea than simply remaining behind; or that his desire was to eat fast-food instead of trying a closer place; or that he judged it opportune to insult his colleagues rather than try to settle their differences in a peaceful way; or that he chose this day to bring his wife flowers instead of using his time and energy with a cold beer at the local bar.†
††††††††††† In all of these cases, his original and essential "Being" is responsible for having assigned a certain level of value for each given action.† He has chosen, as each individual will do, one action and not another.
††††††††††† The original and essential ďBeingď †is responsible for whatever we want to do.† In order to do this "correctly", even in the case of actions we do for the first time, ďBeingď has designed specific sciences whose job it is to make each action aware of its inherent logic.† The science of medicine is, therefore, the task of learning how to better understand the human organism.
††††††††††† We already understand how the sub-sciences operate, which we are not concerned with.† We are essentially focused on understanding the original and essential "Being."† Namely: Why do we assign specific value to our activities?† Why do we judge one thing more important than another?† Why do we set particular goals and have certain wishes?
††††††††††† Let us return once more to our banker.† His original and essential "Being" leads to certain activities which he carries out, and rejects other possibilities, which he chooses not to do.† He could have chosen to take public transport instead of driving,† but he rejected this possibility.
††††††††††† At the same time, there are other activities that our banker does not exercise (is not able to exercise) on his own.† It is these activities that his original and essential "Being" demands of other individuals of the society in which he lives.† He expects that there are doctors who can examine him if he is sick; that there are mechanics who can repair his car when it has problems; that there are farmers who produce the food he needs to survive, etc.†
††††††††††† If each of these jobs did not exist in his society, his original and essential "Being" would lead to much different activities.† Instead of becoming a banker, he would have possibly become a farmer for simple survival reasons.† He couldnęt have passed someone in his car, perhaps, because after his last crash, his car is still sitting there, unable to be repaired as there is no mechanic. Perhaps he would have become a specialist in herbal medicine so that he could compensate, at least in part, for the lack of a doctoręs presence.
††††††††††† Today we are very much aware of the inner logic behind the sciences that we practice, jobs we practice, as well as the diverse actions that we take part in.† And so, we should also be able to become aware of the inner logic of the original and essential ďBeing.ď†
††††††††††† The reason for this is clear when we see that the architect can only perform with success when he knows how to construct a house--when he knows the laws of statics and what materials are neccessary for its completion--just as the doctoręs skill relies on his knowledge of how the body works.
††††††††††† Similarily, our inherent job of the original and essential "Being" is only well practiced when we know the rules involved.† Our success is reliant on the ability to recognize the principles (i.e. laws that are valid for every human being, without exeption) of the original and essential "Being" and knowing where their boundaries lie.
††††††††††† A structural engineer who doesnęt have command of his job (i.e. he doesnęt understand the laws of his science) will construct houses that collapse.† A doctor who doesnęt have command will make false diagnoses and will thus harm rather than help his patients.†
††††††††††† Our banker, and every other person respectively, will always evoke situations that he doesnęt want if he doesnęt have control of his original and essential "Being" (i.e. when he doesnęt understand the inner-logic of the original and essential "Being,").†
††††††††††† If he insults his colleaugues from time to time, he shouldnęt wonder why they seek revenge, maybe even a month later, perhaps, by complaining to his superiors.† Or, say, when he chooses to go 55mph in a 35mph speed zone that he could be heavily fined.
††††††††††† What happens to an individual who carries out the techniques of original and essential "Being" in a poor manner can also relate to entire groups of individuals.†
††††††††††† If the bank manager isnęt able to uphold his bankęs accounts, then sooner or later the bank will have to face liquidation.†
††††††††† ††If an entire population (or a multitude of a stateęs inhabitants) is poorly informed about the inner rules-of the original and essential "Being," then the single poor performances of original and essential "Being" will be multiplied.† Examples of multiplied outcomes might be civil war, war with neighboring states, or dictatorship.† It is often the case that the undesireable events† affecting an entire group are the direct results of the same individuals who enacted their original and essential "Being" inappropriately.
††††††††††† Our banker has experiential knowledge that insulting those at the workplace can harm his career.† He recognizes, in this case, that his abuse could result in a reprimand by his superiors.†
††††††††††† If the managers of a bankrupt† bank choose to continue in this profession, they will only improve their skills by avoiding or minimizing similar mistakes in the future.† In order to accomplish this, though, they will necessarily have to better improve the understanding of a bankeręs inner-logic.† If they refuse to undergo this step, then the next flop has already been quasi programmed.†
††††††††††† Too, if an entire population who is responsible for civil war or dictatorship doesnęt learn how better to command the inner-logic of their original and essential "Being," then the next war or dictatorship is essentially inevitable.
††††††††††† The structural engineer who miscalculates his construction has the chance to improve his inadequate knowledge.† Better yet, the very science of statics today has developed to such an extent that his chances to improve are even greater.† The bankers will perhaps have it more difficult because the job is more complex and this results in the erection of more and more schools--more schools have been founded to fill a need where the science is unclear, and to satisfy those who demand such a form of education--and they tend to argue continuously with another on the contents of their theses.†
††††††††††† It is even more difficult for the population that has just suffered--yet caused this outcome--a war or dictatorship.† After a devastating war, a cruel despotic governmnet could convince a majority of the population to avoid another war and also to fight against another tyranny.
††††††††††† Indeed, the overall scheme of events are so complex and difficult to sort out that the actual individuals wonęt find it easy to understand how their own faulty utilization of the original and essential "Being" could have led to such negative developments in their society (war and dictatorship).
††††††††††† †It is even more difficult to work through because to date there hasnęt been one generally recognized science for the original and essential "Being."† Those ready to learn are not able to fall back on an index of Principles (i.e. laws or a set of patterns accepted as absolute) considered valid and readily available, and approved by everyone.† Principles with which they could first be made aware of their past mistakes, then improve their individual outcomes of the† original and essential "Being," and finally avoid those mistakes in the future.
††††††††††† This index of priciples is absolutely necessary to find.
††††††††††† If a structural engineer falsely calculates the house design due to his defect knowledge, the house will cave in.† If a banker operates under inadequate knowledge, it could result in bankruptcy.†
††††††††††† When the individuals of an entire population or state function with insufficient knowledge about the inner rules of the original and essential "Being," their shortage can result in war, dictatorship, programs against minorities, etc..
††††††††††† There is one science that does grapple with the principles of the original and esential "Being":† philosophy.†
††††††††††† This science is different from all other sciences in that it gives priority to the understanding of the original and essential "Being" and in so doing, it explains everything, including the value of all other sciences.
††††††††††† In dealing with the principles of the original and essential ďBeingď, philosophy gives us more information about ourselves.† Because we are the ones who set all of our actions, philosophy can not only give us more information about ourselves, but also more information about that which we create.†
††††††††††† This is how† philosophy† gives us the possibility to be aware of mistakes in our lives.† On the other hand, philosophy enacted incorrectly or even consciously misused could result in negative developments (where even the most well-known schools direct their followers toward war and dictatorship).† This is not the fault of philosophy as a science, but rather of those who have created and who have accepted such philosophical systmes without having sufficiently scrutinized them.
††††††††††† We are the source of all our own activities, and as a result, philosophy can assign all of the† manifestations of these activities into a place of understanding.† Philosophy, as we understand it, is the successive uncovering of the principles of the original and essential "Being "
Throughout life, it is continuously possible to discover these principles (again, a principle is a law or a set of patterns accepted as absolute).† Once these principles are revealed, they should be mapped so that their meanings and places can be assigned for all to see.† Step-by-step we can learn about our activities of the original and essential "Being."†
††††††††††† Philosophy, as the science of the original and essential "Being," would only be fulfilled when we reach 100% clarity about ourselves.
††††††††††† As it is now, we know very little about ourselves, so the final and definitive goal of philosophy should be to erase all unclarities concerning our original and essential "Being."† In order to accomplish this eventually, we need to steadfastly endeavor to bring more and more principles to light, and to become more and more aware of their constitution.†
††††††††††† The more we learn about ourselves, the better we will discover the reason for opposing beliefs.† Not that today, in the very beginning of our search, we can claim that all differences of opinion can be settled in mutual agreement--it is possible, but not necessarily so.† It is, in fact, too early to judge at this point in time.† What philosophy can certainly do at the very least is to explain why differences of opinion exist at all.† In other words, if differences and conflicts are at all to be resolved, it will be with the guidance of philosophy.
††††††††††† The task at hand is really to look more closely at our original and essential "Being" by further developing the science of philosophy.† In so doing, we can hope to come closer to knowing how we function, and can become aware of our own intellectual process, and even to discover parts of ourselves we are not yet aware of.†
††††††††††† The way we will do this is to find, with the help of everyday situations, principles (something that is valid for everyone); to analyze them in the context of their relationships to the original and essential "Being,"† to determine how much or how little the principles have to do with one another, and finally to test whether or not certain principles are derived from other, more basic principles.
††††††††††† If such principles are derived from other more basic principles, then we will examine these, and deduce even further to determine if they are not still greater derivatives of more basic principles.†
††††††††††† A basic question at hand is how far we can deduce, and if we can even come to find the absolute fundamental principles, or "original principles" (principles off which all other principles are built); to ask, too, whether or not original principles exist at all.†
††††††††††† One thing can be said:† the more principles we can demonstrate, and the more we can uncover of their constitution, the more extensive our knowledge will reach into the sphere of† the original and essential "Being," and the greater opportunity we will have to be aware of ourselves.
††††††††††† In order to survive, all people are continually forced to make decisions.† Every resolution established is a choice decision, as we always have the ability to select it or to leave it.†
††††††††††† If asked why we deal with an intillectual principle instead of dealing with one related to the actual physical make-up of a person (flesh and bones), the answer is a simple one:†
††††††††††† The understanding of the physical body is given to the science of medicine, whereas we want to reveal the very core of our "Being."† We want to discover what elements play what roles;† to examine our skills of "doing/acting" and "feeling/sensing" (dreams, ideas, feelings).
††††††††††† All action, just as† its manifestations are visibly "real" for all, actually finds its origin in invisible, so-called "intellectual" principles.†
††††††††††† Everything felt, although it might have "real" causes, also takes place within this "invisible" and "intellectual" world within us.††
††††††††††† With every decision we make, we establish a goal, and in order to accomplish it, we are compelled to follow certain rules, which we do "voluntarily."
††††††††††† †The very act of making decisions, setting goals and following certain rules are principles that are inseperable from the laws of the original and essential "Being."† Human beings have acted according to these principles as long as they have existed.
††††††††††† One is more often not even aware of the decisions he makes, nor of setting a goal, nor of the moment when he behaves in compliance to the rules in reaching that goal (to make it real).
††††††††††† A few examples will demonstrate what is meant by this.†
††††††††††† A native Indian living in the deep jungle of the Amazons decides to hunt† in order not to starve.† This is why he sets himself a goal, namely to kill one or more animals of† the jungle. To manage this, he must participate in the rules of the hunt: he tests his weapon, takes care of any malfunctions, leaves the villiage with other tribe members (because multiple hunters will necessarily multiply their success), creeps through the thicket bent over, etc.. He has followed these rules "voluntarily" (i.e. no one has ordered him to conform to these steps) by having learned from experience that this pattern can lead him to his goal.
††††††††††† Another example takes us to the bank employee.†† He will write a business letter, one of many integral to his job.† He chose this job as he needs to earn a living, and he needs money, quite simply, to survive.† (Of course there are a multitude of other reasons for his specific choice in banking, but for our purposes it is important to see that one of his main reasons to work at a job is to earn money, which is necessary for his survival).
††††††††††† Following this line of reason, we return to the Indian, who doesnęt want to starve.† Instead of hunting, he could choose to gather fruits of the jungle, or even to grow a vegetable garden.† All of these decisions change the very matter of his objectives, change, too, the contents of the rules he will follow to reach a particular goal.†
††††††††††† What remains constant is that principle that says if he has a decision he wants to make real, he must set objectives, and in order to realize the objectives, he must follow those rules inherent in this process.
††††††††††† We experience the same in the bankeręs case.† He could very well have chosen another career in order to earn a living.† He could also ask a colleague to write his letter and instead of writing, choose another activity.† He could even do without writing the letter at all, and instead call his business partner to directly communicate whatever is necessary, etc.
††††††††††† When the Indian now tills the soil and plants the seeds for his vegetable garden, and the banker assembles the necessary paper and typewriter for getting his letter out, we have just seen a basic similarity at work:† both of them do these actions to survive.†
††††††††††† Many decisions, in following the order of their objectives, lead to sub-decisions.† Writing the business letter is an example of a sub-decision of the decision to become a banker.† He can now consider on down the line to what kind of typewriter he will use,† if his wording will be friendly or more professionally reserved, the letter can be short or long, and he can sign in red, blue, green or black, etc.
††††††††††† Our Indian can dig short or longer furrows in his garden.† He can choose from a number of possible vegetables to grow, and plant one or many.† He can shape his garden square or elongated, etc.† In these cases, the shape of the Indianęs garden is related to the color of pen the banker uses to sign his letter by the fact that each creator has decided to survive in a distinct manner.
††††††††††† The planting of the Indianęs garden and the writing of the bankeręs business letter are visible (real) outcomes of the subjugation under the rules necessary to reach a self-imposed goal; namely, that of survival (the fact that the goal to survive is self-imposed is shown in the cases where the individual has the choice to act† in such a way that surviving becomes impossible but chooses not to).†
††††††††††† The effort to reach oneīs self-imposed goal can occur in oneęs consciousness or unconsciousness (i.e. in oneęs power of reason or in oneęs inner driving force).†
††††††††††† Even in the case when objectives are not in oneęs consciousness, they are still directed by the subject as every set of objectives is the result of a decision he made before.† The fact that each person is the creator of his own decisions (we don`t care about the circumstances which lead to to his decision. Itīs only important here, that the individual person makes a specific decision and wants to make this decision real) makes him also the creator of the objectives that belong to each decision.
††††††††††† One might ask what the case is if there are no exsisting objectives for the Indian when gardening or hunting.† What if his actions are only the result of pure chance?†
††††††††††† Let us not forget that by such complicated acts, like hunting or planting a garden, that the acting individual had plenty of chances to act in tens of thousands of other ways (i.e. to decide differently).†
††††††††††† In such a complicated process of implementation as "going on a hunt" represents, it is really unthinkable to relate his outcomes to "chance" as the multitudes of other possible acts (e.g. begin singing all of a sudden, throwing oneęs head against a tree, or turning somersaults,etc.) were also at the Indianęs disposal, and therefore, rules out a "chance" result.
††††††††††† (If pure "chance" behavior were possible, how would this "chance" "emerge?"
††††††††††† Before any ďchanceď occurs, decisions are made which lead to that which allows the ďchanceď to occur. These decisions, once again, are made by the individual (consciously or unconsciously). So we see that a decision has to be made by an individual in order for ďchanceď to emerge.)
††††††††††† Because the decisions are made by the individual, and because this decision is "followed" (i.e. instead of tens of thousands of possible other decisions, only those are made which lead to the continuation of the act, e.g. hunting), we can say that the fact that something simply happened in the process of survival (and not a countles number of other possible decisions that could even lead to a person not being able to survive) is practical proof that an action bound by "law" (i.e. an action obligated to a set of objetcives) has been carried out.
††††††††††† Let us suppose that our two creators, the Indian and the banker, drop the idea of planting a garden and writing a business letter, but then in order to survive, they will be forced to do something else (It is the principle that a set of objectives that one has decided to reach (in this case to do that which is necessary to survive.) can only be attained by following a certain set of rules).† It is clear in the case of planting a garden or writing a letter, that these actions are the result of following essential rules.† Both take place with the purpose to reach their goal (to survive), and both are "visible" shapes of the following principle:† Every decision to do something automatically puts those rules into place that must be followed in order for the decision maker to be able to reach his objectives in reality.†
††††††††††† If one does not comply to the rules, then the objectives are no longer attainable.† In this case, it means that if the Indian does not plant his garden, then he will not be able to harvest at the appropriate time.† And then, too, if he does not hunt or do anything else to feed himself, then he will be incapable of attaining his objective (survival), and death will be of consequence.
††††††††††† The same occurs in the case of the banker in writing his letter.† If he suddenly avoids writing the letter, which is an integral part of his job, and continues his behavior of avoiding the task, and instead, he chooses to just sit around (i.e. he refuses to do the tasks necessary to the objectives of being a banker, and fails continuously to fulfill them) and also refuses to do something else to secure a job--or go on welfare--then he will not receive any money, and, finally go hungry.
††††††††††† Both examples point out that in order to survive, it is necessary to carry through with specific actions.† If one chooses to forego these acts, then he must take on other ones, for they are the consequence of the basic decision to survive.
††††††††††† Let us now turn to decisions, which are not necessary to deal with due to daily life reasons. Decisions that I could refuse to make and would not result in interfering with my ability to survive.† Remember, every resolution is the result of a decision.† If one only thinks of something, then there must have been a decision made to address this subject.†
††††††††††† Examples of this type of decision can be seen in the following resolutions:† "As far as it is possible, I want to take action against this war" and "As far as it is possible, I want to fight against this tyrant."
††††††††††† †It might seem at first that these two examples are incongruous to this type of decision.† If one opposes a war, he can either avert the possible terrible outcomes himself or protect others from harm.
††††††††††† It is obvious that every war averted also preserves others from harmful outcomes, and in some wars, one can come out with his life.† But this hasnęt to do with the type of decision at hand.
† ††††††††† This type of decision, where one opposes a war (or a tyrant)--which poses no direct life-threat to the decision maker, cannot harm him.
††††††††††† What is important to point out is that in special situations, certain people make these types of decisions eventhough they can do just as well to avoid them (war or tyrants) by not making this type of decision or substituting this decision with another similar decision--without this abstention resulting in specified outcomes in their future lives.† Their lives are not put in danger as a result of non-participation.
††††††††††† From this point on, we will address the first type of decision (covered in the previous chapter) as Decision-Type Survival (= Decision-Type S ) to represent the examples of the decision type we explored in the first chapter (the banker and Indian in their goal of survival).† Decision-Type Non-Survival† (= Decision-Type N ) will represent the second type of decision we just touched upon in this chapter, whereby the subject does not have to reach his objectives in order to survive.† The Decision-Type N† is represented by the statements "As far as it is possible, I want to take action against this war" and "As far as it is possible, I want to fight against this tyrant."
††††††††††† To continue with the Decision-Type N, let us look at the example of Germanyęs involvement in the Gulf War (1991).† People† gathered in front of the American Embassy to protest the bombing of Iraq.† Many were there, having made the decision that, "as far as it is possible, I want to take action against this war," and they used their participation in protest to achieve this goal.
††††††††††† There is a large number of protesters in Germany who neither had relatives in Iraq, nor had a job at stake because of the war, and none of the protestors had to worry all that much about Iraqi retaliatory measures resulting in terrorist attacks in Germany--no German troops took part in the active war front, and attacks would have certainly taken place on other nationsę soils.† The decision "to take action against this war" did not directly help to secure the lives of those who protested. We should ask why a person gets involved in such activity in the first place?
††††††††††† In order to better answer this question, we will take a further look into the differences between Decision-Type S and Decision-Type N.†
††††††††††† The main distinction that can be made is that Decision-Type S †is noted for its will to survive, whereas Decision-Type N† is reached without directly influencing oneęs own survival.† In other words, we are forced in life to meet Type S †decisions, but enter Decision-Type N† completely voluntarily.
††††††††††† More empirical differencesbetween Type-S †and Type-N decisions will be shown:†
††††††††††† Itīs a principle that is valid for all sets of objectives: one who wants to reach a particular objective has to follow those rules which are necessary to accomplish this objective.†
††††††††††† The set of objectives of Type N† decisions are more difficult to reach than the set of objectives of Type S.† In the case of Type S† decisions, the way from the decision to do something (e.g. write a business letter) to the realization of this decision is often easier to steer than on the path following Type N.
† ††††††††† If he wants to write a business letter, he needs only supply a typewriter, paper, an envelope, and to write the address on the envelope to whom he wants it sent, etc.† This process is so clear that he does not need to work it out on an intellectual level.† Even those who do not choose or want to write a letter would agree that when writing a letter, particular "rules" must be applied.
††††††††††† If I along with others want to thwart the dictator of a particular state, and we all possess the same set of objectives (to remove the tyrant from the state ranks), the way to get there remains unclear.†
††††††††††† We must ask if the best way to bring these goals into reality is by issuing economic sanctions against this state, by militarily interfering, by arranging the assassination of this dictator, or by supporting underground efforts in opposition, etc.?
† ††††††††† The path is not as obvious in the case in Decision-Type N, as it is with Decision-Type S.
††††††††††† In many cases, an appropriate conversion of Type N decisions is not possible simply because the goals (=set of objectives) have not been clearly assigned.†
††††††††††† Take the example of the resolution to get rid of all dictators.†
††††††††††† We have to convice many others of the need to follow through with this resolution in order to actualize it.† We will most likely find quite a few who agree, but few who agree where this resolution is applicable.†
††††††††††† For some, this resolution would apply only to all communist states, and for others to communist and right-wing extremist regimes are both applicable.† Some believe Turkey to be applicable because of the Kurd-bombing in 1992.† Others believe it is not applicable to Lybia because the Libyan leadership made efforts to better the lives of its citizens, and that this, therefore, counts more than the dictator Khadafi.†
††††††††††† Although many might have chosen to bring this resolution to reality, they had strongly differing opinions as to what this resolution meant for them, i.e. those with the same resolution were partly in disharmony with one another because their objectives were different.†† This fact is, for the transformation process of the Type N decision, even more detrimental because we need the cooperation of a large group of individuals.† These individuals can be of the same will to rid the world of all dictators, but as long as they have differing views (different objectives), their decisions canīt be transferred into reality and at the same time please everyone.
††††††††††† Theoretically, it should be possible for those of differing viewpoints to find a solidly defined set of objectives that everyone can accept as their Type N †decision through discussion.†
††††††††††† It is equally theoretically true that multiple attempts to find a common way for transforming a Type N †decision into reality will lead to the discovery of the ways that best accomplish this goal.†
††††††††††† The differences between Type S †and Type N †are not conclusively unalterable discrepancies.† With necessary effort, they can be solved at once or over time. The only true fundamental difference lies in the fact that Decision-Type N† is not made to result in oneęs own survival.
††††††††††† A sub-group exists within Decision-Type N, which is necessary to deal with as itęs practical implementation stands out from that of that of the Decision-Type N† itself.† It seems to follow the transformation of the objectives into reality as the Type S †decision, but in actuality it belongs to Type N †because it is not an imperative decision made for survival reasons.† In order that we not confuse the three, we will entitle this type of decision Type N-2, and the example we give is when the banker chooses to give his wife flowers and our Indian engraves pictures in the walls of a cave.
††††††††††† It is clear to see that in both cases, the question of survival is not pressing.† The transformation of their decisions into reality (bringing flowers and engraving pictures)† furthermore, does not issue a problem to complete.†
††††††††††† The rules that must be adhered to for each action are also easy to recognize.† The banker needs to have money at his disposal, know where to buy the flowers, and be sure to be at the flower shop during its open-hours, etc.† Likewise, the Indian needs to have a sharp object, know where he wants to carve, and to be able to visualize the objects as he draws them so that they transform into the figures he has chosen.
††††††††††† There is also no problem of participation from the integral others who must take part in the process to make the decision real.† The salesperson at the flower shop willingly trades money for flowers, and the Indian can easily convince the others, if he so chooses, to be left alone during his task.†
††††††††††† In Type N-2 decisions, one can learn very quickly how to let the objectives become reality.† But the question remains, Why one chooses such objectives (e.g. bringing flowers, etc.)!†† Our Indian could have been bored, or maybe he wanted to put his unused skills to test, or to try to strengthen the powers of his recollection, or possibly he wanted to hand something down to his descendants, or any number of other possibilities.† In the example of the banker, he might have made this decision in hopes to make stronger ties with his wife, make her happy, or even in order to enjoy the flowers himself.†
††††††††††† There is one of many reasons possible in both cases, and whether or not the subject is even aware of why he chose this Type N-2 †decision is another question altogether.† The fact of import is that the subject can avoid this sort of decision without endangering his life.
††††††††††† In summary, there are two groups of decisions:† one group is made in order to survive, the other is made eventhough these kinds of decisions are not necessary in any way to survive.
††††††††††† The first group is the Decision-Type S, and the second group comprises both the Decision-Type N and Type N-2.†
††††††††††† How one is able to transfer the decisions of Type S †and Type N-2 †into reality is generally obvious, whereas a Type N decision makes it very difficult to follow a simple line into actualization.†
††††††††††† The inquiry of why one makes the decision in the first place is only clear with Type-S, whereas the second group supplies a multitude of possible bases.
††††††††††† The preferences held by the Type N-2 †decision maker can be expressed either consciously or unconsciously.† It is easy to understand why one makes these decisions as the preferences are easy to realize--buying flowers, making carvings in stone, going on vacation, etc.† At this point we are not aware of why an individual has the preferences he does, but we do know that fulfilling them is simple in this case,
††††††††††† Moreover, one is aware that in making a Type-N †decision, the way in transfering the preference into reality is long and hard.† Why should one take on such a process, whose attainment doesnęt even lead to measurable returns.
††††††††††† Are those who attempt to bring Decision-Type N †into reality idealists--those who fight for the improvement of othersę lives, who they donęt even know?† Are they moralists who take action against the egoism of others, or do they only want to make others aware of the injustice involved, or possibly even something else?† The types of reasons that these reflect do not derive from visible personal advantages, and so the dubious nature of their purpose remains.
††††††††††† Let us now pursue why one makes and follows through with Type N decisions.† It can be hoped that by following an empirical line and analyzing it, we can come closer to answering our question.†
††††††††††† Look at the example we already provided of the protestors in Germany who were against the Alliesę bombing of Iraqi cities in 1991.† They fought against the United States as it was primarily responsible for the war-alliance.† If we were now to ask the demonstrators why they protested, we might hear, "Because we are against this war!"†
††††††††††† "War" itself is a concept, and any concept takes on the meaning assigned to it.† For some, "war" is an honorable display of power, whereas for others it is terror, a taker of innocent lives, a massacre and a devastation.† We then have to ask why the latter do not like this war, why it should be abandoned, and what reasons they have against it.†
††††††††††† Some of those "asked" gave only one reason, but the majority had more than one argument.† The following explanations of the protestors are not completely listed here, but are meant to give a cross-section of possible responses:
The reasons why the protesters are against this war:
††††††††††† "Because every war is horrible;"†
††††††††††† "Because too much is destroyed in warfare;"
††††††††††† "Because too many innocent are made victims as a result of an action they had no say in (the conquest of Kuwait);"
††††††††††† "Because the right of the powerful is validated (here, the Americans);"†
††††††††††† "Violence never solves anything,"
††††††††††† "One cannot just allow others to be killed;"†
††††††††††† "War" (in this case the attack of the Allies) produces a spiral effect of fighting being answered with more fighting, and it is absolutely necessary to interrupt this vicious circle."
††††††††††† †If yet another answer reads, "It is all in the interest of the weapons industry," we would ask what the protestor has against this outcome specifically, to which he might respond, "Their interests should not be permitted to take the lives of others."
††††††††††† Let us use the principle already listed in chapter one: If one has a decision he wants to make real, he must set objectives, and in order to realize the objectives, he must follows those rules inherent in this process.
† ††††††††† We immediately recognize that all of the answers we were given are resolutions that each individual produced.† Resolutions are decisions, and every demonstrator came after the first decision† to yet another decision: "I want to play my part in bringing this decision to reality."† (Of course, there are those who are also against this war, but who choose not to make any efforts in making this decision real.)
††††††††††† Each demonstratoręs resolution (as many examples provide above) is succeeded by the decision to fight against the war.†
††††††††††† Their protest against the war is an attempt to employ the rules adequately; the rules are the steps one must take after the decision (i.e. the reason for opposition) has been made to reach the objective.† These resolutions develop their own set of objectives, as follows:†
†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† The Objectives:
††††††††††† "We should not allow any more terror;"
††††††††††† "So much destruction in the world should not be permitted;"
††††††††††† "Innocent victims should not be forced into an outcome, that is not in their power to make;"
††††††††††† "The power of the strong should not reign;"
††††††††††† "Violence should not be used to resolve problems;"
††††††††††† "The murdering of others should not be put up with unopposed;"
††††††††††† "One must have the courage to break the spiral of violence--violence should not be answered with violence;"
††††††††††† "Industry should not be allowed to realize their interests at the cost of peopleęs lives."
††††††††††† Because the reasons to fight against this war were formulated in such a way as if the formulation itself would already prove that these formulations are right, so the objectives that belong to the reasons must also be formulated in this way.†
††††††††††† That is to say that the reasons of the protesors and the objectives of those reasons are not meant only to be applicable to this war, but rather claim to be "correct" at all times for every situation.† Such reasons and their objectives are general axioms.
††††††††††† The concept of self-axiom , for our purposes, is different from a principle in that it is the individual who creates this rule and considers it applicable only to himself in all circumstances of his life.† A general axiom† is made by an individual and assumed to be true for all people--not just himself--whereby everyone in all situations should be required to follow this axiom.
††††††††††† Those "asked" justify their protest and their own legitimacy to act by claiming that this war repudiates against thier general axioms.
††††††††††† One might ask how is it that the reasons and the objectives to fight against this war have become general axioms, especially when the protestors themselves did not consider them along these lines?
††††††††††† †This is because the protestors justified their actions against this war with arguments.
††††††††††† Those arguments (the reasons to fight against this war and their objectives) are used by the protestors in such a way that they believe that everybody (those who have a healthy way of thinking) who hears those arguments, would accept their formulations one hundred percent.†
††††††††††† This means that the protestors didnīt find it necessary to justify their arguments by establishing further arguments because with their pure formulation, everything should have been explained sufficiently.
††††††††††† The protestors justified their fight against this war because in this war things happened which were against their arguments.† Because the arguments were, in their beliefs, true without any doubt, fighting against this war became a necessity.
††††††††††† But those resolutions and objectives which the subject takes for granted, as we observe in his behavior, are nothing more than general axioms.†
††††††††††† Of course, he who formulates a general axiom believes this to be a self-axiom. The general axiom, "We should not allow any more terror" follows the same belief inherent in his self-axiom† that "I am not to allow any more terror."
††††††††††† At the very least, we can admit that the protestors have developed wonderful axioms, whereby it is generally accepted that a world without terror and destruction is a good.
††††††††††† It is striking, however, that many of the "asked" didnęt even stick to their axioms.† It seems they took their objectives only in this special case seriously, where they could have tried equally as hard to realize their goals in other ways.†† They considered their objectives as general axioms† only in this case, but these--just as self-axioms--cannot only belong to a single case and avoid other situations, for it would not be an axiom in the first place.†
††††††††††† Why did we come to the conclusion that the domonstrators (at least most of them) didnīt follow their own general axioms?
††††††††††† To point this out, letęs look at the objective, "The murdering of others should not be put up with unopposed" as an example.† It stands on its own and is not a part of other objectives, like the following for example: "The murdering of others should not be put up with unopposed when cruelty and too much destruction is permitted."
††††††††††† This objective as well as the reason behind this objective are formulated by the indidual in such a way that they stand for themselves and need no further justification.
††††††††††† With this the individual shows that the objective as well as its reason are axioms for him. This means that the individual believes that everyone has to do his part to put a stop to every situation when people are killed (general axiom), or at the very least he has the oblication to do what he can in every situation (self-axiom).†
††††††††††† Practically speaking (in reality), the subject who came up with exactly this formulated resolution (this is to say, he doesnīt see the formulation of this resolution as part of another formulation, rather he sees it exactly as it was defined above), would also have to take part, among many other things, in a protest in front of the Chinese Embassy to fight against the delivery of weapons to the Khmer Rouge, who after the "killing fields" were further supplied with weaponry by the Chinese government.†
††††††††††† But our demonstrator would also have to be involved in a countless number of other protests against states that engage in killing activities against human beings.† Further, he would have to protest in front of the doors of all firms that produce armaments and deliver them to countries continually occupied in warfare.† But the list goes on: he must hold a fist to the unusually high crime rate in the United States--where too little seems to have been done--and also work to curb the all-too-many traffic accidents that claim many lives everywhere--also where little seems to have been done.†
††††††††††† The demonstrators we "asked," who made this resolution (the murderingof others should not be put up with unopposed) readily admit that they did not engage in the other protests (above), even if they would agree to them.†
††††††††††† Their reasons for this are manifold.† One engages in a protest in front of the American Embassy when he believes that fighting against the Chinese would be a futile attempt.† Other demonstrators say that they woud never think to associate "war" with fighting against crime or deadly traffic accidents.
††††††††††† We conceed that whoever lives by the axiom--the murdering of others should not be put up with unopposed--will also attempt his protest at the doors of other statesę embassies as well, and if that doesnęt work, he will attempt to use the pressure of public opinion to influence his government to put trade restrictive measures into place.† He will do this simply because any axiom requires him to try all possible measures that could succeed in fulfilling his purpose.† It is not entirely unthinkable here that the use of trade embargoes could influence certain states to, if not deter their killing of others entirely, minimize their terror, as we have seen in some examples of history.
††††††††††† Of course, war is very different from other incidents such as traffic accidents or crime-related murder.† But all are related by the axiom of "the murdering of others should not be put up with unopposed," and therefore, all examples should be given equal attention at least if one feels bound to, or takes seriously, the axiom he claims.
††††††††††† It is really quite obvious that the demonstrators in our examples violate the very axioms they laid down because their behavior indicates that they do not follow those rules to which they are bound to follow if the axiom were to exist at all.††
††††††††††† The demonstrators behaved the same in the case of all the other objectives. Every objective together with its reason was shown to be an axiom by the protestors--without actually being one.
††††††††††† What are our conclusions from all of this?
††††††††††† There are good reasons to believe that the demonstrators didnīt lie in telling us the reasons for their protest.† They were certainly convinced that they followed those axioms we listed when protesting against American involvement.† However, this was not the case.†
††††††††††† The many so-called axioms we gave before for the protestors reasons for fighting against this war were not axioms for them and in this sense not the actual causes of their decision, and so, we can no longer retain our previous list.†
††††††††††† Their decision to fight against this war is a valid motive for their actions as their very action against this war proves.†
††††††††††† Equally as certain is that there are resolutions which trigger this decision to fight against the war.†
††††††††††† Because our list of false axioms is not the true cause for their resolutions--eventhough the demonstrators believe them to be--we will have to compose a new list of reasons and objectives.
††††††††††† Remember, first, that the phrase to "fight against this war" is only a concept, from which one gets only that meaning that he himself gave to it.† It must possess the meaning assigned to it precisely because without oneęs individual associations with "war" (e.g. death, destruction, etc.), the concept would contain nothing.†
††††††††††† The attribution doesnęt have to be reduced to "war" in general, it can also mean this "this war."† In "this war" we can observe which groups fight against eachother, and in which situations the conflict takes place, and whereby the roles are cast to determine who is the agressor and who is stronger, etc.
††††††††††† Keep in mind that before the decision to "fight against this war," resolutions had to have been made--not those we mentioned to this point, but there must have been others.††
††††††††††† The result of our "inquiry" shows that the demonstrators were not aware themselves of the true resolutions they followed because these resolutions are not known by them--we are convinced that they didnęt lie about their supposed axioms--because of this, we know that these resolutions lie in their unconsciousness.††
††††††††††† All of the protestors against the Gulf War have something in common.† This is the resolution to "fight against this war."† Eventhough they have very different reasons to "fight."† According to our "polls," they are convinced that they are aware of their resolutions, but we know that their true resolutions have not yet been revealed.
††††††††††† Because the same research in other examples of the Decision-Type N† (and Decision-Type N-2 ) gave us similar results, we can be clear that the inquiry into WHY with Type N (and N-2 ), at least with most of the decisions of this nature, should not be directed at the consciousness of of the person, but rather at the unconsciousness.
††††††††††† We can see from this process that the unconsciousness can principally influence decisions.† Therefore, the question of WHY cannot be completely and satisfactorily explained without the inclusion of the unconsciousness.†
††††††††††† All people have the principle ability to land impressions.†
††††††††††† An impression takes any form of a perception from a given event taking place in reality.† If one loses nearly all his sense organs, it could happen that the only thing left to him is the sensation of pressure on his skin, and this pressure can be equated, too, as an impression.† When a personęs sense organs are in good functioning order--therefore getting a much different picture of the reality around him--this, too, is an impression.
††††††††††† All people are also inclined to store memories.†
††††††††††† A memory is any remainder form of a former impression from his own conceived world, even when it is an incomplete fragment of those impressions.† If one is not conscious of his whole impression, but has only an indefinable idea of it, this is also a form of memory.† Reversely, one can recreate an experience (i.e. a former impression) to a level of realness, but which only remains as a memory.
††††††††††† All people possess an indefined amount of unconscious memories.
††††††††††† It is easy to determine that we indeed store unconscious memories when, for example, we know that we cannot recall particular experiences that we had (e.g. when one doesnęt remember any longer what a good friendęs party was like), and even with the greatest of effort, cannot bring it to our consciousness, and then it finally occurs to us two weeks later (e.g. how the party was).†
††††††††††† In this case, a formerly unconscious memory has been transfered to conscious memory.
††††††††††† Let us return to our construction of a decision.
††††††††††† If one were to hear that the country he wanted to visit on vacation suddenly broke out in unrest, then he would not go.† If he were then asked why he is not going, he might respond, "because I donęt want to put my health or life at risk."
† ††††††††† This example indicates a conscious impression received from the T.V. and newspaper reports of the unrest, from which he has chosen not to to travel in these conditions based on a self-axiom :
††††††††††† "I will not get involved in those situations I know to be dangerous for my health or unnecessarily risk my life."† The decision is then not to travel there because of the information given, which stand in contrast to the self-axiom that existed.†
††††††††††††††††††††††† (It should be pointed out here, that the self-axiom is a fact, whose contents are formulated not only by his justifications for not traveling to this country, but also by the mere actuality that he wants to survive.†
††††††††††††††††††††††† It is clear that this is an axiom, for throughout his life he has tried to stay alive, and too, avoided those things endanger his very life.†
††††††††††††††††††††††† He must have made this axiom a fact of his life, consciously or unconsciously, because every decision to stay alive proves that he did exactly those things that he only would do if he had such a.self-axiom.)
††††††††††† †To explore unconscious decisions, let us use the following example:†
††††††††††† One was repeatedly bitten by dogs as a child, and now, as a young man, whenever he meets up with a dog, his feelings are mixed with fear and loathing.† Because he was so young back then, he doesnęt remember his experiences any longer and even to today, no one has informed him of them.
††††††††††† First when he is informed of the events that took place back then will he be able to better understand his own reactions.† Then he can begin to analyze how these affected him.†
††††††††††† The following had to have happened to him in his childhood:
††††††††††† He had to decide, even unconsciously, that the experiences he had as a child did not agree with his self-axiom† to "avoid unecessary pain."†
††††††††††††††††††††††† (It is easy to recognize that he must have had this axiom, even if he was unconscious of it.† When small children are hurt, their reactions express that pain is far from a feeling of comfort.† When a child screams or attempts to escape the object of his pain (or both), they show through their practical behavior that they do not assign worth to the feelings of pain.† This in turn proves that they produce--even without knowing it consciously--this self-axiom.)
††††††††††† From his experiences and this self-axiom, he built a further self-axiom:† "I will avoid all contact with dogs since they can hurt me, which I donęt want."
† ††††††††† This resolution, most likely unconscious, caused him to respond to dogs with reservation.† Even still, a chain of unfortunate events fell upon him, whereby he was bitten twice more.
††††††††††† After this happened, his further self-axiom was not only more strongly confirmed, but also, it was given greater value in his consciousness.† The axiom was not entirely conscious to him (this actually works in him on an unconscious level), but the axiom brought him to action (such as avoiding dogs).
††††††††††††††††††††††† (The above example is clear to us when we remember that small children and babies--at least unconsciously--also have self-axioms.† The previously explained must be true based on the fact of the dogęs bite as well as the fact of his response to the bite).
††††††††††† After this experience, every time this small child saw a dog, he made a decision (conscious or unconscious) to get out of the way.
††††††††††† At the same time, he experienced how others, such as his mother, repeatedly violated his axiom to "avoid all dogs since they can hurt me, which I donīt want"† His motheręs friend always brought her dog on visits.† Too, his mother never crossed the street when a dog approached, eventhough he would have, could he have converted his resolution into action.
††††††††††† And so, he had to continually observe how his axiom was violated.† He couldnęt do anything against it, he could only watch as his axiom was ignored.† For him, then, everytime a dog showed up, he felt the immediate threat of experiencing new pain.
††††††††††† In holding up his axiom, he attempted to convince his mother not to allow her friend to come with the dog, and to cross the street when a dog came, but she only dismissed it as nonsense.
††††††††††† His inability to be active in doing what he had to do (in part due to his mother) caused him to break out in fear.
††††††††††† As he grew older, he forgot these incidents.† He couldnęt remember (i.e. the memory was unconscious) any of it, and yet he still experienced the fear that remained from these experiences.
††††††††††† This fear went so far as to cause him to cross the street whenever a dog approached, or he avoided those stores, in front of which a dog was tied, etc..
††††††††††† In other words, he made conscious resolutions (e.g. to cross the street because of a dog) based on conscious feelings (namely, "fear of dogs").
††††††††††† The reason for the fear (i.e. for this resolution; since "fear" stems from oneself, just as every other feeling, and is considered a resolution, like everything else that comes from oneself whether it be action or feelings (which are only varieties of actions) ), however, now lies in the unconsciousness.
††††††††††† These examples are meant to show how both conscious impressions and unconscious memories influence our decisions and the actions which result from these decisions.
††††††††††† How do we differentiate between the concepts "conscious" and "unconscious?"
††††††††††† Together, both are the forms in which our awareness† has stored everything that it comes into contact with and can store.
††††††††††† The term form means that consciousness as well as unconsciousness says nothing about the actual content which is stored within awareness, but instead describes whether access to this content is possible or not.
††††††††††† Unconscious† means that oneęs access to the "somethings" (In this case ďsomethingď stands for everything that can be in ones awareness.† From now on, we will use this term to represent any undeclared values) is not presently possible (at least not as long as the somethings† are in the unconsciousness).
††††††††††† Conscious, on the other hand, is when one can access somethings† in such a way that one can remember them at any time.
††††††††††† The childhood trauma of being bitten by a dog is unconscious, whereas the memory of the hotel stayed at on oneęs last vacation is conscious, for example.
††††††††††† It should be pointed out that there is a double meaning of consciousness.† On one hand, it means "posibility to access at every time," and on the other hand, it is generally used in everyday speech to mean,† "everything I am mindful of/sense at the moment."† Though, one can always be thinking of more than he realizes at a given time, and so, it is necessary to deal with this double meaning.
††††††††††† Our idea of consciousness, as described above, will be the concept that one has the "posibility to access the somethings at every time," and we will describe that condition when one realizes something† at a particular time as total consciousness.
††††††††††† We will presently define awareness †as that which is responsible for storing the somethings, in the form of consciousness †or of† unconsciousness, and which can call up somethings in the form of total consciousness.
††††††††††† We can only define awareness† very broadly at this point, as we hope that the better we learn how to investigate our "original and essential Being," the better possibility we have to gain more accurate knowledge of awareness, and with this, a more acute definition will be available to us.† This will not change our current definition, but only broaden the understanding we presently have.
††††††††††† The arrangement that one something† is unconscious, whereas another is conscious is not final.† We know from experience that it is repeatedly the case when one remembers something all of a sudden, which had been unconscious to him over a shorter or longer period of time.† It can relate to a dream sequence, for example.† One is walking along the street, has particular impressions, and out of the blue the picture of a specific memory pops into his head, which had been present in his dream the night before.† But this is a picture that had been in his unconsciousness until now.
††††††††††† Letęs keep with the dream example when asking a further question.†
††††††††††† Assume that this person dreamt of a hot-air balloon ride. The question is then this:† Was the subject totally conscious of this activity at the time it occured?
††††††††††† Of course, one is totally conscious of the memory.
††††††††††† If he were to attempt to visualize every detail possible of the memory, he will realize that he had much different priorities in the dream as those he orders in his "normal" life (i.e. in his everyday life).† He wasnęt concerned about his job--he didnęt even realize he had one--nor did he think about his appartment, he was only interested in the clouds around him.
††††††††††† If he observed himself the moment after he had deepened his memory of the scene in the dream, then he could observe how he now had a much different emotional attitude compared to a few moments ago.† He didnęt think (while remembering his dream) about his job; he recalled some of the images and revelled in them, etc.† He could, when observing himself, notice that when he went away from these totally conscious memories, and instead, entered a totally conscious dealing with the real world (such as being conscious of the simple action of walking on the street), that actually a small change in his own awareness took place during this transfer.† Both the mood he was in as well as the tendency to see the context changed.
††††††††††† A further example.† A movie is being shown again on T.V., which one had seen four years earlier with the woman he was totally in love.† This movie holds a tender spot in his memory.† He knows exactly how much he liked the plot, how funny the actors were, and how great he thought the production was when he last saw it.† Anticipating how great it will be to see it, he sits in front of the T.V., without the girlfriend from back then, though, since this relationship fell apart.† Now, he experiences the movie to have mediocre quality and actors, and in the last two years he has seen the same plot performed much better in other movies.† Quite simply, this time he finds the movie completely different from what he saw four years earlier.† He goes so far as to consider what he saw back then completely stupid.
††††††††††† Both times he saw the movie, he was totally conscious of the situation, and yet he judged them fully differently;† the one and the same unchanged object (the movie) affected him in entirely different ways.
††††††††††† Another example.† Our banker is at work.† While talking on the phone, he searches for the right words that will win over his business partneręs trust in order to gain an investment opportunity.† He has strewn his car documents without thinking all over his desk, and straigtens his tie after the phone conversation.† He does just that what a banker might do.
††††††††††† Another scene.† Our banker is on vacation in southern Italy.† In shorts, he complains that the Italians are tourist antagonists by not permitting him into the cathedrals.† He keeps his car documents in a safe place in an inside pocket, and while he bargains with the guy at the market for some grapes, he is constantly alert that no one will try to steal from him.
††††††††††† Another scene.† Our banker is learning how to ski.† The boots are tight, the wind is cold, and he can hardly see the ski instructor through the heavy fog.† He falls again, and the snow gets into his collar.† He curses the winter, and at the same time knows that heīll be with the skii group the next day anyways.
††††††††††† Now the banker is sitting at home, and in visualizing the situations, establishes that in all three situations he not only acted differently, but also that he had set much different priorities in each situation.† In southern Italy, it was important for him to visit a lot of cathedrals.† There, in such a short period of time, he went through more museums than he would back at home in an entire year.† He thought, when he had made the plans, what more there would be to see, and how he could best hide his money in the night, etc.† In other words, he adapted to a much different life pace, which was manifested in his thoughts and feelings of both liking and aversion.† He considers it abhorrent for tourists to wear shorts in his home-town Vienna, but when he is on vacation, it doesnęt matter.
††††††††††† All of these examples point to one thing:† In the case of a totally conscious activity, one and the same person shifts to different priorities, to different moods, in the most diverse of situations (= gives priority to specific resolutions over others, which are otherwise more important; on both a conscious and unconscious level), without the situation necessitating a decision to survive (e.g.† he doesnęt have to pay for another day of ski instruction in order to survive).
††††††††††† These entirely different moods, in whose sphere of influence one has not only totally conscious †impressions, but also very specific memories and combinations of thoughts, will be described in the future as awareness levels.
††††††††††† An awareness level †comprises oneęs entire totally conscious† behavior; that also includes every decision (and resolution) which is done totally conscious at the time of this awareness level, for conscious or unconscious reasons.
††††††††††† (At this point in time in our examination, we cannot leave out the fact that it is possible that we make decisions without ever beeing totally conscious that we make those decisions and whose effects we never experience totally consciously or whose effects we experence totally consciously much later and only very indirectly). This means that these decisions only happen in our unconscious and their effects also stay only in our unconscious (or whose effects we experience totally consciously much later and only very indirectly) but still we make these decisions.† What we have already experienced, however, is that decisions which we make totally consciously (at least through their effects) are often also (though nearly always) called forth by unconscious reasons.)†
††††††††††† An awareness level †is a situation in which one--that is, oneęs awareness--finds himself, and which shows a particular mood.
††††††††††† †An awareness level† is a mood with which I grapple, totally consciously , with a very special thematic invention, under which all themes are ordered (see appendix).
††††††††††† Many awareness levels †occur within a dayęs time.† If one is attentive to the news on T.V. he has an awareness level †different from that when he eats dinner with his family or when he puts all his concentration into the text of a book, etc.† In other words, all changes in oneęs priority list within a given time, even temporary ones, are awareness levels.†
††††††††††† Let us return to that vacation at the begining of this chapter, which our subject did not take because of unsafe conditions.† Before he was informed about the unstable milieux, he was actually excited to go.† He visualized the white-sand beaches under palm trees, and thought about everything he might visit in the capital, how much time all that would take, and even saw himself already dealing with a native for cheap textiles, etc.† But as soon as he heard of† the unrest--seeing on T.V. how killed tourists were being flown back to their home countries, how foreigners only felt safe on the streets in large groups--it immediately changed his image of the country.† He imagined himself already having been there, having to face completely different urgencies; his attitude towards this country fundamentally changed with new facts he received.† He developed a different awareness level.
††††††††††† Awareness levels †can often be easily differentiated from one another† (such as the bankeręs activities at work as opposed to those in southern Italy), or they can also blend into one another--are minimally inseperable--(such as if one watches T.V. and then eats with his family).†
††††††††††† Just as certain situations which often cause one to change his awareness levels, one can also attempt to enter new situations in order to hold on to previous awareness levels.† For example, after oneęs trip in southern Italy, he can maintain in the workplace, the mood he had while there (= the awareness level †from there).† He could come to the bank in the clothes he wore on vacation, or not give as much importance to his conversations with the customers as he did before, etc..† Of course, sooner or later he would have to enter an awareness level †appropriate to his work, if he doesnęt want to lose his job.† But it can also happen that the vacation changed him so much, that he has created an entirely new awareness level †for himself.
††††††††††† What we want to show is that awareness levels †do not automatically have to be changed within a new situation, but can remain the same.† But, in doing so, there is always the danger that one cannot have proper commmand in the new situation if he doesnęt behave in the adequate manner (= the adequate awareness level ).
††††††††††† Let us now approach our inquiry into whether or not our subject experienced the dream sequence in total consciousness.
††††††††††† It is clear that he had a very specific awareness level at that time.† It is also clear that this awareness level was rather distanced from his more usual awareness level† (He was neither concerned with his job nor his private life, and was probably not even conscious †of these (didnęt have any access to the memories of this job and private life) at this time; he had lost quite a lot of connection with himself (the way he is in everyday life) at this time; this means he was at an awareness level that was rather removed from his normal every-day life).
††††††††††† It is also clear that he was totally conscious--in keeping with our definition.† This says that all that which is totally conscious, is "everything one is clear of at the moment."†† There is no doubt that he was clear of his dream sequence in the dream.†
††††††††††† The difference between the dream experience and the normal impressions is not that he had total consciousness† in the latter form at his disposal and not in the first, but rather that the awareness level of his dream experience is so far away from his ďnormalď awareness level (the level he used to have in reality); that it is easy to confuse the dream awareness level with non-totally conscious behavior.
††††††††††† An awareness level† is a particular position of oneęs awareness† at a particular time within a certain time period, which can be distinguished from other positions of the same awareness.† It is a position, an attitude, probably a complete--or at least a totally conscious--part of oneęs awareness.
††††††††††† We have just discussed the forms in which the possible contents of awareness †(= somethings ) can be found.† These forms are unsonscious, conscious and totally conscious.† An awareness level† is, as a position of the awareness,† a result of one (or more) of† its abilities.
††††††††††† Now we want to give our attention to one of the abilities of the awareness :† the Central Processing Unit (= CPU ).
††††††††††† Let us assume that our banker drives home in his car.† He had told his wife that he would do the shopping today.† The decision to "go grocery shopping" is a Decision-Type S (Survival).† It is necessary to buy groceries for their survival.† On his way home, the banker has a variety of stores to choose from.† The decision to "go grocery shopping" is an imperative one (he cannot escape such an activity), but he can choose any one of the stores as long as he can buy something to eat.† It will depend on his and his wifeęs preferences, on a money limit, and the fact that they cannot buy everything in the city where they live.
††††††††††† From this, let us assume that his wife doesnęt have a particular wish, only that the groceries should last them the weekend.† The banker decides to go to a big supermarket where he can choose from a wide selection.† Shopping for three days isnęt a difficult process for him, nor for any of us, and yet, it is actually a very complex process even when he is not totally conscious (maybe not even conscious) that it is a very complex process.
††††††††††† It is complex because in choosing tonightęs meal, there are a hundred different products, and hundreds of combinations between them, from which he must choose those which could be suitable for him and his wife.† And what is suitable for them is not just a few meals, but a few dozen, whose combinations lie in the hundreds.† In order that he does not regret having gotten something better once he sits down to eat, he will choose those products that satisfy his mood at that moment.† And in order to avoid being reproached by his wife for having gotten something ridiculous, he will keep her needs in mind as well.
††††††††††† Letęs assume that he wouldnęt possess the CPU.†
††††††††††† Then, he had to visualize totally consciously all of the possible products and all of their possible combinations in order to be able to successfully complete his self-axiom† to "only buy that which I and my wife really want for tonight" (whose content may not be conscious to him). Then he would have to become totally conscious †of all of the products they liked for what reasons, and in which situations they used the different products in the past.† He would have to estimate what kind of mood would pervade at home tonight (in the future) in order to approximate which products and their combinations would best fit.††
††††††††††† He would never be able to totally consciously† compare all products against one another because every time he is totally conscious †of a few products, other products would come into his consciousness (because he is unable to keep hundreds of different facts in his total consciousness† at one time).† He would have to write a list, or better yet, an entire notebook full of all of the products and their possible combinations, then reduce them to fewer choices, to finally choose the best variations based on his own totally conscious †estimation.
††††††††††† This process would take so long that heęd still be working at it when the store closed.† In the end, he would hopelessly realize that he had yet to buy three meals per day for the weekend, and that he would have to start again at the beginning with the possible choices.
††††††††††† This is, furthermore, only that selection based on particular taste and health criteria (it might not settle to well with him to eat an entire container of curry mixed with chocolate chips for dinner).† He might also need to choose something that can be prepared with minimal time, and which wouldnęt require a lot of dishes since itęs his turn to do the dishes tonight.† He also couldnęt entire ignore the financal aspect (caviar and French champagne would not exactly fit his spending capacity).† He also wouldnęt want to carry too much.† And the list of shopping criteria goes on.
††††††††††† What the banker would be required to do here would hold true for each of us if we didnęt possess the CPU .† That is, if we donęt want to eat something whose combinations donęt fit, nor something that tastes bad, nor something that exceeds our finances so far that we have to starve until the next pay check, etc..†
††††††††††† The ability of our awareness †that has made this complicated decision process easier to manage many times over is that of the CPU.
††††††††††† † Although we are only able to be totally conscious† of a very small proportion of the data in our awareness, we are provided a quasi CPU †from further data, not just totally conscious ones, of the awareness† at the same time
††††††††††† This CPU† helps to make our decisions in much greater context than would be possible in only our totally conscious †considerations.† The CPU†† accelerates decision making to a much easier level, and can even become our life savior.† It is our awarenessę ability to transfer the conscious and unconscious data (=somethings ) into totally conscious †results.
††††††††††† To make somethings †totally conscious† in the form of a result (= not each of the somethings themselves) means that we do not recognize the actual somethings† (the very cause of this result), nor do we even know how many are present in this result.† Rather, we experience an invisible (it is only noticable to us through its consequences)† collection of all the somethings, to which our CPU ††then has access (we do not yet know how far it has access) and which we need in particular situations because of former experiences we had with them in order to better manage these situations.† These experiences that we had with the somethings do not become totally conscious† memories for us, which we consciosly or unconsciously have of them, rather, are pointed out through an adequate decisions.
††††††††††† In other words, we experience the process of the CPU† totally consciously† through the contents of the decision (e.g. to have fear or to be willing to do something else) we make.†
††††††††††† †For without the CPU , we wouldnęt even come to these contents.† The very existence of these contents, practically speaking, proves that the CPU† exists.
††††††††††† To better understand this concept, let us take an example from everyday life.
††††††††††† The only T.V.† Julie owns is in her living room.† Sheęs in the kitchen when suddenly she comes up with the idea that she wants to watch T.V..† The thought is a resolution; namely, "I want to watch T.V.."† Before she had this idea though, she was thinking of something entirely different, and so we cannot say that her resolution was established on the grounds of total conscious† considerations,† but rather as the result of the CPU .† This idea is nothing more than the visible outcome of those contents with which her CPU delt with itself..
††††††††††† If she didnęt have a CPU, then without a cause (causes would be, for example, if she found herself in the living room and just happened to have the T.V. in sight, and because of this, was made totally conscious, or perhaps her housemate having brought up a subject on T.V., making her totally conscious)† she wouldnīt even† be able to think about T.V..†
††††††††††† If her total consciousness hadnīt been informed by the CPU, how elce could she have come to the desire to watch T.V.
††††††††††† Because her desire to watch T.V. is not always in her total consciousness, something had to bring this desire to her total consciousness.† It is only the CPU† that can bring her desires in the form of resolutions to her total conscious† attention.
††††††††††† Desires are all those resolutions that one makes and wants to fulfill,† eventhough they are not needed in order to survive.† If one decides to further transfer these resolutions into reality, then it is done according to oneęs desires.† But if one does not attempt to transfer these resolutions into reality immediately, then the desire will become a need (in order to see oneęs desire converted into reality).
††††††††††† Every desire exists only because there are already somethings† in oneęs awareness† which portray the contents of these desires with adequate experiences.† This is to say that if there werenęt memories or thought combinations (= the creations of new ones, which have never existed before), which express similar contents which are brought to surface in later wishes, then one would never develop a desire within oneself to find these situtations (memories, thought combinations) in reality.† Simply so, because oneęs awareness isnīt able to "wish" about things it doesnęt know about.
††††††††††† Desires are, therefore, the results of conscious and unconscious somethings within oneęs awareness (most likely in the form of memories, but there is also the foremost possibility for new thought combinations).† It is important, too, to remember that one is informed about his desires via the CPU† (without CPU, desires could only be the result of those somethings which one is totally conscious of in the moment which one has this desire).
††††††††††† From here, letęs imagine that Julie had no idea what would be offered in the twenty-some T.V. channels.† In making the resolution (= the decision) to "watch T.V.," the CPU† worked to process all (we donęt know how many) the possible memories from T.V., and compared them to one another.† The CPU† considered well- and poorly-made films, how often she enjoyed watching T.V. and how often she felt like she wasted her time afterwards, how many interesting facts and good information she got, etc.† Finally, the CPU† concluded to watch T.V. today based on the situation she was in today (i.e. the CPU †took the conditions of that momentęs reality into consideration).
††††††††††† Had Julie not possesed the CPU† when she made the decision to watch T.V., then she would have only come to the idea--to totally consciously †think about watching T.V.--by coincidence (such as when she stood directly in front of the T.V. set or when her housemate talked about it).
††††††††††† Without the CPU,† Julie would have had to go through every film in her memory (as we pointed out with the grocery store example).† Sheęd have to become totally conscious of all positive as well as negative experiences in awtching T.V..† After that, she would have to compare all the proęs and conęs in relation to her present situation before she could become totally conscious †of whether or not she wanted to watch T.V. at all.
††††††††††† The decision to convert the resolution (desire) to "watch T.V." into reality would have come to her easily with or without CPU.
††††††††††† With CPU, she makes this decision totally consciously without having to respond to the decisionęs outcome (namely, to "want to watch T.V.") and without having to deal with counter totally conscious †arguments (alternatives) because this was already accomplished by the CPU .
††††††††††† Without the CPU, she would also decide with her totally conscious† resolution to convert her resolution into reality (turn on the T.V.).
††††††††††† Now she really needs her CPU :† With twenty different channels, there are twenty different programs.† When she flips through them with the remote-control, it is the CPU that processes each channel she hits, and determines what type of program is available.† In other words, thanks to the CPU† she knows immediately if itęs a discussion, romantic movie, action movie, documentary, the news, or whatever.† The CPU †recognizes what type to best associate the present-shown program with.† The CPU †also informs Julie right away if she is more interested (= the intellectual shape of desire) in watching sports, news, an action movie, etc. at the moment.† That means, as soon as she has registered the subject matter of the program (= the type of program), she is informed if she has any interest whatsoever in the program (i.e. if she should keep flipping through or not).
††††††††††† In contrast, if she didnęt have CPU, she would have to determine totally consciously †what different types of programs there are, starting with the first station she would turn to.† Once she is totally conscious of all the possibilities (documentary, sports, music T.V., etc.) simultaneously--or, if this were impossible, to write out a list of all the type possibilities next to each other in order to be totally conscious--she would have to constantly compare her chosen program with former programs (she would have chosen former programs to represent a "type" of program) to determine which type it fits with.†
††††††††††† After this, she would have to decide if she even wants to keep with this type of program--a documentary, for example. In order to do this, she would have to totally consciously† compare the documentaries with all other types so that she could totally consciously† remember from all other past films of all types (she should be totally conscious† of as many formerly-seen films as possible), which she most prefered in the past.† Not only this, she would also have to totally consciously† determine which type would best suit her in her present situation.
††††††††††† Let us assume that she decides to stay with a documentary (a purely theoretical example since the program would be over by the time she could finally make the decision to watch it).† Her totally conscious †decision is not nearly at a close, because in order to stay with it, she will have had to find pleasure with this type of program.†
††††††††††† To find pleasure with something (i.e. the impression prefered to other impressions), she must also know the alternatives.† She must--because she doesnęt possess the CPU--totally consciously† know what else is available other than the one she is presently totally conscious †of.† For without the CPU, (which constantly informs us of the somethings of our awareness through the contents of our desires and needs (i.e. our moods)) we would only know from reality that which we are totally conscious †of!†† In other words, we would not really know anything at all from reality.
††††††††††† And so, Julie would constantly have to test totally consciously† whether her documentaryęs subject matter still fits to her situation in order to reject all the other contents of the nineteen possible programs.† This means that she has to decide if it is worth to stay with this program, or if she should continue flipping through stations based on her past experiences with the subject matter in these T.V. programs--and would need to be totally conscious† of all of those formerly-seen programs simultaneously with each consideration.
††††††††††† Seen practically, without the CPU , Julie wouldnęt have been able to watch any of the programs since she couldnęt make a decision quickly enough.† Or, she would have watched something she didnęt want to, because she avoided to decide altogether.† For example, she could have even stared at a stationęs off-the-air signals run along the screen simply because she didnęt want to decide, and was, therefore, never totally conscious †of her alternatives.
††††††††††† As we have shown, without CPU, all of our decisions would take forever--we wouldnęt even have the "ability to live," so-to-speak.† The CPU also makes it possible for us to fall back on our unconsciousness, that which we are unable to bring together in our total consciousness.† We experience that the† CPU† is able to this every time we make a decision and the true reasons for it, after much consideration, couldnęt be in a conscious sphere of influence.† The decision to protest against the Gulf War is a good example for this.
††††††††††† We do not yet know how much access the CPU† has to our consciousness and unconsciousness, nor how many somethings† are open to it (are all of them or only a part?).† We also donęt know which values the CPU† gives to the somethings.†† Nor which value systems it follows in coming to its results (which are totally conscious† to us in the form of decisions).† If Julie wasnęt allowed to watch much T.V. as a child, for example, and she has such a strong desire to watch today, how much of this has to do with the experiences of her childhood?
††††††††††† Of course, we cannot demand any marvels from the CPU.† If one wants to reach a particular state of being (based on the memories that his CPU† worked out), and the CPU† determines, based on its memories, how it can convert the decision into reality, then it is still possible that there arenęt enough memories to be able to determine the success of oneęs efforts.†
††††††††††† It may be that on the way to conversion one is confronted with so many variables in the form of actions of other people, who also determine their actions based on their CPUs, that his own CPU† doesnęt even have a chance to say ahead of time with any accuracy what his actions will lead him to.† For example, if one has the need to get rich, and he thinks that a good chance lies with the stock market, then he will make his attempt with the appropriate materials.† The decision will then be to choose which stocks to invest in, but this will be decided in large part by the CPU† since there are a hundred pages of relevant information which he cannot be totally conscious †of at that moment.† Even if his total consciousness †is led by the last pieces of knowledge, it would still fall back on the knowledge which the CPU† possesses.† As soon as the stocks are put up for sale, one doesnęt know how the CPUs† of other people, who also want to buy the stocks, will respond (i.e. how the present rates will influence their further decisions).
††††††††††† On the other hand, when the awareness† has enough† memories, the CPU† can markedly help one with decisions, that lay down how one can best turn a reslution into reality.
††††††††††† If the banker goes grocery shopping with the resolution that "tonight I am going to get something good, and also keep my wifeęs tastes in mind, and think of the conditions that will influences the meal at home," then the knowledge of his CPU† will be of great help in realizing his self-axiom "correctly" (i.e. appropriate to the axiom) in determining which things to combine with one another, which things take how long to prepare, and will estimate his wifeęs mood, etc..
††††††††††† What we still do not know about the CPU †is if the conversion of its desires (its resolutions), through which we experience the CPU, is actually good for us.
††††††††††† These resolutions are actually always purely subjective, because they are dependent upon the contents of the somethings †of our awareness, and we donęt even know to how many of the somethings† of the awareness† the CPU† has access.† That is, the resolutions are the outcome of former impressions and thought combinations.† It is unknown whether these are the "right" resolutions for us; that is, whether they can help us to a "higher" and "real" purpose of action (if that even exists).
††††††††††† The CPU †works through decisions in two subject areas.
††††††††††† In one area, the CPU †informs us, through its "access" to many (all?) somethings† of our awareness , what exactly the awareness †desires; i.e. which impressions awareness† preserved as comfortable.
††††††††††† In another area, the CPU† helps us choose the right conversion of decisions into reality.
††††††††††† This means that it points the way, on which we tread, so that our decisions are able to receive the appropriate impression in reality.† The CPU† gets the knowledge it needs along the way through "analogy conclusions," which are extracted from that which formerly existed or presently exists (which can be either memories or thought combinations).
††††††††††† (Of course, theoretically, the CPU† can create an entirely new solution to a problem.† One, which is not at all derived from analogy conclusions of those things that formerly existed.† But the CPU† would at least need access to those somethings †with which it can solve a problem, in order to "recognize" this new solution to a problem at all, i.e. in order to know of the solution in the first place).
††††††††††† On one hand, the CPU† works with the somethings† in order to diagnose our desires at the present moment, i.e. now.† We will assign the term now-CPU †to represent this subject area of the CPU.
††††††††††† In another way, the CPU† works with the somethings† in order to help our decisions to become later impressions (any form of a perception in reality) of our awareness.† We will call this area of the CPU †the future-CPU.
††††††††††† The now-CPU †is at work, when while grocery shopping, the banker comes up with the resolution, "tonight I am going to get something good, and also keep my wifeęs tastes in mind, and think of the conditions that will influences the meal at home."† The now-CPU† informs him of his desire.†
††††††††††† If he is then told to quickly collect of all of the groceries that fit his resolution, then this is according to his† future-CPU.†† The future-CPU†† lets him know how he can best realize his resolution.
††††††††††† The now-CPU† only expresses oneęs purely subjective preferences.† It judges (i.e. establishes) what impression oneęs awareness† desires to have, and what not.†
††††††††††† The future-CPU† doesnęt judge.† The future-CPU, with the help of all experiences stored in awareness† (to which it has access in any case), only recognizes the rules necessary for transfering a resolution into reality.† It only gives us the facts and does not offer subjective values.
††††††††††† The CPU† is the ability of our awareness† to allow us to make the decisions we make every day the way we do.† We notice its effect in practically every decision.
††††††††††† We differentiate the now-CPU† from the future-CPU† based on their mechanisms.†
††††††††††† What is the difference betwen these two varieties of the CPU ?† How far do their different modes of operation reach?
††††††††††† All types of decisions, whether it be Type-S , Type-N , or Type N-2 , are instigated by the now-CPU .
††††††††††† It is clear in the case of Type-N† and Type N-2† decisions.† Single resolutions which lead to single decisions that belong to Types-N †and N-2† can easily be abandoned without directly endangering the subjectęs life.† (It should be noted that the intention to make a decision in the first place is a resolution in and of itself.)
††††††††††† The reason that one concerns himself with one specific decision when he could just as easily focus on other decisions within the Types -N †and N-2 is because the now-CPU , in having access to (= dealing with) conscious and unconscious experiences, comes to a decision with that which it (the now-CPU ) wants to handle.
††††††††††† (Our definition for the concept "experience" runs as follows:† it is everything that one can have through impression, memory, or thought combination; i.e. everything which took place and will go on in the contents of our awareness ).
††††††††††† This means that with the Type-N and Type-N-2 decisions, the now-CPU† determines which decisions it will occupy itself with at all.
††††††††††† The future-CPU† explains to where the now-CPU† decision could lead.† The future-CPU† points out decisions that could lead to endangering oneęs life.† The now-CPU† will then have to decide whether to take on these risks of a particular decision or not.
††††††††††† The future-CPU †would also point out the decisions which donęt endanger the subjectęs life, but which work against other resolutions of the now-CPU †(both Type-N† and N-2† decisions).
††††††††††† In this case, the now-CPU †will have to decide which resolution is more important.† Whether its desire to follow this decision is so strong that it decides in doing so, to act against its other interests (i.e. desires) or not.
††††††††††† Note that the now-CPU† decides twice with Types N† and N-2 .† First, to work with such questions in the first place (to work with a specific subject (e.g. If† I ask myself: Do I want to go to the movies?)), and second to work with these effectively (to decide what its wishes are concerning this subject (e.g. If† I decide: I donīt want to go to the movies now.)).
††††††††††† †When a resolution suddenly becomes totally conscious , this means that the now-CPU† had already chosen a course of direction (made a decision) before the process of becoming totally conscious (e.g. If† I suddenly feel the desire: I want to go to the movies.)
††††††††††† Something else to pay attention to:
††††††††††† When we speak of Type-N †and N-2† decisions (these include, of course, all related resolutions), we are speaking of those decisions that result at least in practical (i.e. in reality) outcomes.
††††††††††† These decisions are made based either on the fact that we are totally conscious† of these decisions, or because we perform totally conscious† actions (too, even if we ourselves are not totally conscious† of the decisions).
††††††††††† That is, the now-CPU† (and future-CPU ) makes connections between total conscious† and unconscious (and, of course, conscious experiences as well) experiences.† The connections do not make us totally conscious of all the unconscious experiences (that determine the now-CPU in its decision making), but rather, we† experience these unconscious experiences through the influence they have on our decisions.
††††††††††† How does the now-CPU† effect Type-Survival †decisions?
††††††††††† The decision to survive is the most fundamental of all decisions.† Without this decision, we could never have all those experiences which we are all quite used to.† ( We do not know totally consciously† how we are when dead; but we do know that when "dead," we are not the same as we are now).
††††††††††† That is, if the now-CPU †is to deal with those decisions with which it is continually faced, it has first to decide that the individual it functions for stays alive.
††††††††††† To "stay alive" is esssential in being able to even deal with anything that the now-CPU †has made us accustomed to today.
††††††††††† What is the future-CPU ęs task?
††††††††††† As we have already mentioned, the future-CPU† is responsible for determining where the Type N †and N-2† decisions will be lead.† It determines whether or not these decisions could lead to life-threatening situations, and also, if Type N †and† N-2† decisions could counteract† each other in such a way that the now-CPU †wouldnęt want to make these decisions under these conditions.
††††††††††† Once the now-CPU† has made the decision that it wants to assign particular directions to particular Type N† and N-2† decisions based on the facts given by the future-CPU,† the future-CPU† can then determine how these decisions can be made "real."
††††††††††† If the now-CPU† decides, for example, to go to the movies instead of staying home, then the future-CPU† would reveal what one needs to do in order to go to the movies.
††††††††††† What are the areas of responsibility for the future-CPU† in making Type-S† decisions?
††††††††††† If the now-CPU wants to survive (which is the most fundamental of all decisions), the CPU ęs most pressing responsibility is to know how one can survive.† That is, to know which possibilities there are to survive.
††††††††††† This is the responsibilty of the future-CPU .†††
††††††††††† Only then can the now-CPU† decide which type of survival method it prefers† (e.g. the now-CPU† could have preferred for our banker to have become an insurance salesman).
††††††††††† It is clear to see from this that the future-CPU† has the possibilty to point out the boundaries to the now-CPU .† It is also clear that the now-CPU follows these boundaries in reality on a continual basis.† The now-CPU† always follows the guidelines of the future-CPU .† This is because the future-CPU† works on that which is in the interest of the now-CPU.†
††††††††††† Finally, it is in the interest of the now-CPU† to pay attention to the future-CPU† since the future-CPU† will inform it how best to come to all that, which the now-CPU †itself wants to realize.
††††††††††† The question is now this: does the now-CPU† participate in all decisions we make?†† We know that it does in the case of Type-S , Type-N and N-2 †decisions, but are there other types of decisions that can be made in creating the same circumstances?
††††††††††† First, let us understand what exactly is meant by this question.
††††††††††† Couldnęt there be something that we should decide upon? That is, that there are decisions, which it is necessary to grapple with, eventhough they donęt comply with the desires of the now-CPU ?† In other words, decisions that the now-CPU† doesnęt want to make, but must be handled with because of a specific necessity?
††††††††††† These necessities could be anything.† They only have to possess the quality that they are necessary, independent of totally consciously† wanting to decide for these necessities at the moment or not.
††††††††††† Examples of this might include:† If one wants to rob another, and decides not to based on "moral considerations."† Or, if one wants untruthfully to swear on the Bible, but then chooses not to out of respect for God.
††††††††††† Through its activities with the diverse questions and its decisions concerning these questions, the now-CPU† shows that one deals with those things one wants to.†† But the question then reads:† If there is something that one should want, how does he know that particular necessities exist at all?
††††††††††† Let us not forget:
††††††††††† Everything that we can totally consciously (or even unconsciously) know has to be expressed (in this way, be an experience) through the contents (the somethings ) of oneęs awareness .† Afterall, that which is not an experience, can also not be consciously or unconsciously known.
††††††††††† This is also to say that when there is a necessity, in which one has something to do even if he might not want to do it, but which has to be done--the necessity must be left to the contents of his awareness† to be expressed.† (Remember, too, that everything "to do" is only made possible through past-made decisions, for one could just as easily decide not to do this).
††††††††††† One can only be totally conscious† of a necessity when one occupies himself with this subject, which contains a necessity.
††††††††††† Who resolves, however, that one will busy himself at all with a specific something?† That is, that one decides to deal with one special subject and not any number of other subjects?
††††††††††† In all cases, the answer lies within the CPU , as this ability of the awareness †determines with which subjects one will work (and, too, as already stated--to be active with one subject is a decision in of itself).
††††††††††† It is not the future-CPU, as it only concerns itself with the outcomes of decisions already made or the outcomes of decisions to be made.
††††††††††† Can we say that it is the now-CPU† which takes care that one deals with such subjects (necessities)?† Or does another type of CPU† exist for this?
††††††††††† What describes the now-CPU† in practical terms (i.e. how it functions in reality)?
††††††††††† It makes one deal with something.
††††††††††† The now-CPU† deals with those subjects it wants to, and with this, it makes all decisions for all activities in practice.
††††††††††† Why is this so?
††††††††††† First of all, let us not forget:† a decision can be unappealing on one particular awareness level,† and yet be attractive on another awareness level .
††††††††††† If one hates to participate in sports in the rain, then he wonęt normally take part.† If it were then to rain something awful when he wanted to take ski lessons, then he wonęt want to go.† Only when he sees that by taking advantage of this opportunity to learn to ski for once, he will later have the chance to ski in deep snow under a blue sky, will his now-CPU† decide at this time to practice skiing although it is raining.
††††††††††† That is, just because he was not happy about the necessity at the time, doesnęt mean that he wouldnęt want to learn on another awareness level .
††††††††††† If one is totally conscious †of a necessity one must follow through with (which one might not find attractive at the moment, but which has to be done), then this necessity must show itself!
††††††††††† This means that it must be expressed with the contents of awareness , why this necessity is a necessity (i.e. has to be done; independent if one wants to do this or not).
††††††††††† If the necessity can be expressed totally consciously , then one has to confront himself with this necessity in order to totally consciously† have the slightest notion that it is indeed a necessity.
††††††††††† As soon as one deals with something that reality doesnęt force one directly to do (e.g. if one were not brought to this activity by threat of punishment), then first the "desire" had to have been there.† One might not be totally conscious† of his "desire,"† but based on the very things one does proves the existence of his desires in a practical way (through real experience).† (One can claim not to like a particular activity, and believe it himself, but his very participation in that activity might prove his desire otherwise).
††††††††††† Too, if one stumbled upon the subject of a particular necessity "by chance" (e.g. if one is made attentive to it because another person points it out), but this necessity did not correspond to the subject matter of his now-CPU , then he wouldęve changed the subject immediately; he would have ceased to deal with this necessity (e.g. possibly, by changing the subject of conversation, since this necessity did not register as a necessity to him at all).
††††††††††† That is, without the "desire" of the now-CPU , one couldnęt deal with the necessities in such a manner that he totally consciously †understands that something is a necessity at all.† Nor could he deal with necessities (necessities are necessities--just as every principal is a principal--even if one does not totally consciously† recognize them as such)† without totally consciously† realizing that those in front of him are the necessities he must deal with.
††††††††††† This brings us to the conclusion that if necessities exist at all, then we can experience them exclusively with the now-CPU.† Without the now-CPU, these necessities wouldnīt be a factor for us at all.† This means, seen from a practical point of view, whether they exist or not would make no difference to us.
††††††††††† We can, therefore, state:
††††††††††† The desire to survive is the most fundamental desire we have in our lives.† (Even when it is not the most important in every single moment of life).† Because this is the most fundamental desire (which we experience as with every desire, because of the now-CPU ) we can also say that most fundamental responsibility of the future-CPU† (in serving the now-CPU ) is to find the ways through which we can best survive.
††††††††††† Any other type of decision, that does not belong to survival but which we do anyway (even if we only deal with it for a short period of time--a split second or less), comes into being exclusively through the now-CPU.
††††††††††† Again, the now-CPU ęs decisions are determined by the conscious and unconscious experiences in their mechanisms.† Even in the case of necessities that one deals with which could give one the total conscious† impression that they could work against the desire of the now-CPU :† they, too, are only impressionable so far as they are desired by the now-CPU .† In this case, the fact that one simply deals with them proves that when he deals with them as non-desirable on this awareness-level† (and possibly others),† there are actually other awareness levels† where these necessities are "desired."
††††††††††† This means that only the Type-S , Type-N† and N-2† decisions exist.†
††††††††††† We can say the following about these types of decisions:
††††††††††† The reason we deal at all with Type-S† decisions is due to outside coercions (namely, the need to survive).† The reason we are concerned with Type-N †and N-2† decisions is due to inner coercions (on the basis of my former experiences and thought combinations).
††††††††††† This all goes to prove that our entire range of activities, which include all of our actions, are nothing more than coercions from outside or within, and, furthermore, that we are, in essence, trapped within a cycle of our already-given determinations.†
††††††††††† If we could leave this cycle of coercions in a sensible way or not (of course one can always break the cycle if he really wants to go precisely opposite to it totally consciously --but the question remains if this makes any sense), or if we even should, can first be answered once we have learned more about ourselves.
††††††††††† Another question comes to surface in relation to our present knowledge:
††††††††††† If the now-CPU† decides on all of our decisions, then it does this based on what it "desires."† We do not know exactly how this "desire" runs, or what the criteria are for "desiring" something, but we do know it functions on this basis.
††††††††††† The now-CPU can only "desire" that which is manifested in the contents of the awareness in the first place (e.g. through thought combinations).† All that to desire, which is not adequately found within the contents of the awareness , cannot be desired by the now-CPU .
††††††††††† At the same time, the now-CPU †shows us everywhere, where it has a choice in the matter, that it decides for those things that it likes.
††††††††††† This means that the now-CPU †would decide even for that unfamiliar or unknown to it if this were more atractive than all that existed before--that is, if it would know of the unknown.
††††††††††† Does this mean that we only establish those desires, and also all those goals we set and, too, all of our actions, based on what we already know in our awareness ?
††††††††††† Or could we lead the now-CPU †to "new" desires, which our future-CPU† would then track down?†
††††††††††† Basically, this would be a good idea.† But who knows what† is really attractive to us;† i.e. what the future-CPU† should track down?
††††††††††† Again, this lies only in the now-CPU ęs sphere of control.
††††††††††† That is, even if we want to reach something more attractive than that which we are conscious or unconscious of to date, then we have to accept the now-CPU †as our guide for direction.† The future-CPU† wouldnęt know where to look for something attractive without the now-CPU .† Only the now-CPU ††judges what is "attractive."
††††††††††† We can only ever hope to gain more pleasure in an impression than we thought possible when we follow the now-CPU ęs objectives (which the now-CPU† creates from analogies of the somethings ).
††††††††††† An example comes to mind when explaining how new desire was once created (which was more important to people at a given moment than anything else).† At the end of the 19th century, some people who lived in the mountains didnęt want to sink so deep into the snow any longer, nor have to spend so much time coming down from the mountain as they did before (this is a decision of the now-CPU).† This is why they came up with the idea (which was the job of the future-CPU ) to tie wooden boards under their feet.† Over time, as the now-CPU† came to realize the pleasure found in such an activity, skiing developed into a form of leisure activity.
††††††††††† Does this example then show that the now-CPU ęs contribution† (along with the future-CPU ) created something completely "new"--something that wasnęt a part of awareness , but which created "skiing?"
††††††††††† Of course, the now-CPU , with the future-CPU , brought the possiblity to ski into consciousness.
††††††††††† Still, in order to even come to skiing, all the "components" necessary were already available within awareness .
††††††††††† This means that the now-CPU† and future-CPU† knew that there was snow on the slopes, that something can slide down the slopes, that there were such things as wooden boards, and that these boards donęt sink as easily in the snow, etc.
††††††††††† Eventhough the now-CPU† and future-CPU† created something "new" with skiing, all of the "materials" for this novelty were actually already existent in awareness .†
††††††††††† From our previous investigation, we can now better understand why the protestors explained their decision to "fight against this war" with general-axioms† which they didnęt actually think to transfer into reality.
††††††††††† Only after the war had already begun, did they, through their now-CPU (conscious as well as unconscious somethings† were used in the assessment), concern themselves with the resolution: to "fight against this war."† Then they strove totally consciously† to justify their decision, also to themselves. Instead of making the real reasons for this decision totally conscious †(or does it simply exceed the abilities of their awarenesses† to make them totally conscious ?), the now-CPU† found it more attractive to make a new resolution:† "I want to rationalize, i.e. possess generally recognized reasons for my resolution to `fight against this war.ę "
††††††††††† The future-CPU†† then entered the scene as a non-judgemental ability.† It made those resolutions which would satisfy the demands of the "second" resolution of the now-CPU† totally conscious .† Whether or not the now-CPU† really wanted to follow these resolutions as an axiom, these wouldnęt have concerned the future-CPU ęs area of responsibities at all.†
††††††††††† That means that finding out the true reasons for the Type-N† and N-2† decisions can only be done by discovering the contents of the unconsciousness.
††††††††††† Conversely, this also means that it is possible through self-analysis, to penetrate unconscious subject areas of the awareness †based on the contents of a now-CPU †resolution.† Afterall, every resolution is a conclusion with conscious and unconscious premises.† Zealously, one could try to find the experiences that lead him to those resolutions based on his preferences.† In this way, he might even succeed to make unconscious memories, those behind this resolution, totally conscious .†
††††††††††† † The sense of these types of mind games remains questionable, though.† If one wants a better understanding of the mechanisms behind the now-CPU , it is conceivable that so many of the memories of our lives are unconscious, and therefore, it is difficult to be able to make a number of the unconscious experiences, which serve the respective decision (the resolution) as premises, totally conscious† again.† To succeed in making them all totally conscious †again is not really the question, however, for we can never know--as long as we cannot experience all of our somethings† in our awareness† as conscious--if there arenęt actually more unconscious somethings† remaining.
††††††††††† Subsequently, however, we will show how far such examinations (looking into the contents of the resolutions of the now-CPU, deducing the conscious reasons, and discovering then which unconscious reasons could have been the premises) can be taken with the help of an empirical example.
††††††††††† Letęs first look again at a resolution we used in the example of the subject afraid of dogs.† Namely, fear.† Letęs discuss it on general terms.
††††††††††† Fear, just like every other resolution, develops from "within" oneself.† This means that that which arouses the fear must be searched for† "within."
††††††††††† Fear itself is a totally conscious† response.† Totally conscious† since we would never realize it if it werenęt so.† It is a response because it doesnęt come into being on its own.
††††††††††† It is provoked by an impression.† This impression isnęt enough, however.†† Because if a single impression one is totally conscious† of would not be compared consciously or unconsciously with memories (and thought combinations), this impression would be completely neutral because in this case it would be judged on its own.
† ††††††††† If there is nothing for it to be compared with, then one couldnęt develop aversions (for in order to do so, one must consciously or unconsciously know that there are other impressions that better suit and comfort the subject).
††††††††††† A fear of storms is one example that illuminates this.†
††††††††††† Judged on its own, a night storm means little more than noise, flashes of bright light, and darkness.† It is only possible for one to be afraid at all because of conscious and unconscious memories in connection to storms (such as death, burning houses, sudden clashes in the middle of the night, etc.).
††††††††††† Thus, in order to even be able to sense fear (i.e. the resolution to grasp fear), one must first have an impression, which the CPU† (both the now-CPU† and future-CPU ) then compares with the conscious and unconscious memories and, too, with possible thought combinations, to determine if an unattractive impression is possible in the future.† (One knows that he similarily experienced this unattractive impression in the past (this is a memory), or he imagines it possible in the past, or that it is one which could be possible in the future (these being thought combinations)† ).
††††††††††† The future-CPU, with the help of memories and thought combinations, establishes which future impressions we could have, based on this impression.† The now-CPU , with the help of these resolutions, determines if such a condition would even be acceptable† (see appendix).
††††††††††† It is clear that the CPU† is absolutely indispensable in at all being able to sense fear:
††††††††††† On the one hand, we have to have first "decided," as is the case in all we do, to sense fear in order to do so.
††††††††††† On the other hand, we first have to compare memories and thought combinations with the fear-causing impression.† And to do this, we need the CPU .
††††††††††† The CPU†† makes it possible to compare particular unconscious memories with a freshly-made totally-conscious† impression.
††††††††††† If we sense fear, this means that the CPU--by comparing memories (and probably thought combinations) with this impression--is informing us that the future-CPU at least sees the possibility for this totally conscious impression to result in future impressions, which the now-CPU† rejects (either because these future impressions are not attractive to it, or because it judges them to be life-endangering).
††††††††††† Fear is the totally conscious †result of a process which does not occur totally consciously.† When the CPU† compares this impression with memories and thought combinations, one is not conscious of this event (at least not in its entirety).† One is only made totally conscious †of the process through its result.
††††††††††† Each fear also represents its own special resolution, and therefore, a decision, and a decision is dependent upon the CPU .† (As we already mentioned, all decisions which lead to something that we "do" (this includes to sense fear as well) are sparked off by the now-CPU . Nevertheless† the future-CPU† is involved in those processes due to the information it offers to the now-CPU. (The information itself is also a decisions, for every piece of information could also hold different messages) ).† Once again, the CPU† decides based on comparisons with memories or thought combinations, and, therefore, can offer "reasons" for its decisions.
††††††††††† As fear comes into being because oneęs CPU †doesnęt like something that could happen, the following question arises:† Why doesnęt one make a total conscious resolution in the place of the fear; a resolution that informs one how to get around that which makes him fear?
††††††††††† Keep in mind that the fear is often the only totally conscious† knowledge available; whereby, through an impression, the CPU† finds it at least possible that undesirable future events could occur.
††††††††††† The fact that the CPU makes fear totally conscious instead of making a totally conscious resolution (decision) which tells a person how to avoid that which one fears, can occur because of the following facts:
††††††††††† In one case, oneęs future-CPU† doesnęt see any possibility for him to escape these possible future impressions (this is the case of the boy afraid of dogs, who, despite his experiences with dogs, continued to be encountered with them).
††††††††††† In another situation, the CPU† doesnęt "succeed" in making one totally conscious† of the solution.† That is, a resolution is found by the now-CPU† through the future-CPU , but oneęs awareness isnęt able to transfer this solution into a totally conscious †resolution.
††††††††††† In both cases, one is confronted with a problem either that he cannot solve, or one that would have to (and could) be solved through his actions, but which he is not ready to do because of his totally conscious lack of knowledge as to how he could manage to do so.
††††††††††† (What if one were convinced to totally consciously †know how to avoid the fear-causing agent, but sensed the fear nevertheless?
††††††††††† This condition would show him that despite his own totally conscious† knowledge, the CPU† is not totally convinced that he can avoid that which he fears.
††††††††††† This happens when one doesnęt have the chance to deter the possible future impressions with his own actions, or, because one isnęt totally conscious †of all that he would have to know in order to escape these threatening impressions.
††††††††††† That is, we can see that the case we described would fall under one of these two areas.).
††††††††††† One can also have knowledge of a fear that is totally conscious to him without being totally conscious† of what the fear is related to (i.e. that which one is obviously scared of).† It is easy to comprehend why the CPU† couldnęt give a totally conscious †resolution as to what he can do to avoid that which he fears.† For in this case, not only are the experiences the CPU is dealing with in coming to these decisions (to sense fear) unconscious to him, but its outcome is only partly totally conscious .
††††††††††† An empirical example dealing with the fear will show us how far we can come in examining the resolutions, after taking away the† conscious reasons, of the the now-CPU .
††††††††††† Our example relates to a child in Austria in the year 1990.
††††††††††† At this time, Iraq had not yet invaded Kuwait, and war in former Yugoslavia had not yet broken out.† And despite this, one childęs worst fear is war.
††††††††††† This evidence is quite astonishing. This child, girl, is only eight years-old and couldnęt possibly have collected any experiences of war till now.
††††††††††† First let us look into whether her "fear of war" means what we normally associate with such a statement.
††††††††††† It is obvious that this girl perceives fear.† As soon as the matter of "war" comes up, she shows all its symptoms.
††††††††††† Through multiple inquiries, we learn that for her, war represents all forms of military intervention between individual states or large groups of people.
††††††††††† We can establish what the girl personally fears in connection with war. †For her, it means the threatening vehicles in the middle of the night, the sirens which announce attacks, bombs that produce a terrible noise as they fall, etc.
††††††††††† Letęs now look into how she could possess these fears.
††††††††††† Itęs obvious that her parents could have had the fear themselves, and simply carried it over to their child.† But we also know that neither the parents nor others, who are in frequent contact with her, could have produced these fear symptoms.
††††††††††† The girl couldnęt have even gotten these symptoms from stories, as no one of her contacts gave her detailed pictures of waręs cruelties.
††††††††††† The only way she could have been confronted with war situations would be by watching T.V..
††††††††††† But surely, the child never chose programs that had the least to do with war.† If she was coincidentally confronted with war reports, she immediately changed the channel or went to her parents for protection.† And yet, she continues to produce fear-symptoms.
††††††††††† Her behavior shows us that aside from this fear, the contents of the following resolution is present:† "I donęt want anything to do with, nor even think about war, because I know that I cannot be protected in such a situation."
††††††††††† This resolution is a Type-N †(non-survival) decision.
††††††††††† This resolution could just as easily be abandoned and not carried out without changing the ability to survive.† For in actuality, the girl herself could not do anything against a war that suddenly broke out, for example.
††††††††††† It is clear that her resolution reads in this way:† Because she cannot do anything against a war, and her behavior shows that she doesnęt want to be a part of any war, the phrase "I donęt want anything to do with, nor even think about the war" is necessary to accept.
††††††††††† The now-CPU† perceives it more attractive (comfortable) to busy itself totally consciously† with more attractive impressions and thought combinations than to fear unnecessarily.
††††††††††† Therefore, we have to accept that the phrase "because I know that I cannot be protected in such a situation" is a necessary part of her (most likely unconscious) resolution, as we showed.
††††††††††† How does a child, who hasnęt ever had to face war in life, choose to have fear in this incident?† Why doesnęt she have fear of strangers who offer her candy?† Afterall, her mother told her on a regular basis how dangerous this could be (more often than the matter of "war" was ever discussed).† Why isnęt this girl scared of cars?† She constantly hears of how children were victims of car accidents.† Why doesnęt she fear nuclear power plants, which can contaminate all there is to play with and eat?† Chernobyl was an important issue which had direct impact on her life: she wasnęt allowed to play in the yard or eat their vegetables any longer.† She even heard about how dangerous, and even how deadly, it was on T.V. at home and at school.
††††††††††† It is most unlikely that her fear of war stemmed from though combinations (dreams, fantasies, etc.).† Newly-developed thought combinations would not--with an exception of those thought combinations which resulted from former impressions (conscious and unconscious)-- have resulted in such responses of fear in reality; first, because they have nothing in common with reality.
††††††††††† It is not clear why the girl chose war from all the possible subjects that could instill fear for her life.† Subjects such as Chernobyl, car accidents, ill-intentioned strangers, etc. were dealt with at greater depth than that of "war."† Logically, we can only understand her choice to concentrate on war and her strong responses (a fear, that often goes so far as to leave her shaking) as if she holds unconscious memories of "war."†
††††††††††† We will develop this situation further in the following chapter.
††††††††††† Let us review what the task at hand is, concerning our examination:† We want to experience more of what the original and essential "Being" is.† That is, experience more of what the principles are, under which we function.† Which principles do we already know, at this point in our examination, that are an inherent part of us?
††††††††††† †There are the following:
††††††††††† Consciousness , unconciousness , and total consciousness† are the three forms, in which the contents of our awareness can be embodied.
††††††††††† Every awareness level †is the awareness ę way of facing a specific subject matter (particular contents in particular arrangements)totally consciously , and at the same time where awareness , with the help of the CPU , can use the conscious and unconscious material on this specific subject matter.† (That is, the awareness considers totally consciously all conscious and unconscious somethings, only in the way in which these somethings† can be helpful in a particular subject matter. †Awareness †does not at this moment (= on this awareness level ) pay any attention to what the somethings† could mean for other subject matters. )
††††††††††† It is awareness ę ability to decide which subjects it dedicates itself to and which subjects it dismisses.†
††††††††††† But the decision is no more than the CPU ęs outcome. It is, furthermore, either the now-CPU †(which decides what the awareness desires in the first place) or the future-CPU †(which decides what is necessary in order to reach set goals, and also what complying with certain goals could lead to).
††††††††††† For a memory, we need first the ability to decide for that which we want (i.e. the now-CPU† is that ability), and then the ability to bring this memory into being in our mindęs eye.† In this way, we re-create the former impression into a new one, simply because the real one no longer exists.† At this point in our examination, we have not yet established which abilities our awareness †needs in order to be able to create these memories.
††††††††††† In the first place, in order to have an impression, we need the fundamental ability to receive that, which the specific contents of each impression creates (the somethings ).† We need the purely physical,† our sense organs, but these are few in any case.† Observing our dreams and memories, we realize that our awareness† has the ability to formulate new creations (thought combinations) by itself.† At this time, we also donęt yet know how this ability functions.
††††††††††† We bring ourselves to action, or to move.† After we have made a decision, we can determine (more or less, at least principally speaking) to try to act according to our decision.† That is, we can cause physical responses from totally conscious† decisions (and unconscious ones, as well).† It is not yet clear, however, how all this functions (the connection between "intellectual/spiritual" decisions and physical action).
††††††††††† The CPU† is† awareness ę ability to access the somethings , to be able to combine (thought combinations (=new ideas, dreams, etc.)† ), and to be able to decide.
††††††††††† Effectively, the only contents which awareness †possesses are the somethings .† They are the material from which memories, impressions and thought combinations are made.† We do not yet know what the somethings† actually are at this point, but we do know that they exist.
††††††††††† Finally, awareness† is the ability that comprises all that which we have addressed.† It is the ability to be conscious (or unconscious), in all of its activities, of the fact that it is the "ego" that it is "unityď(namely, that it belongs to a single person).
††††††††††† Let us take the time now to establish a further concept.† The concept of the "Bewusstsein". As we have already stated, a concept only stands for that which one assigns to it.† We should have no problem with a frequently asked question of whether or not "Bewusstsein" exists, for we will only establish the definition of "Bewusstsein" as we will use it within our examination.† This definition can be expanded upon, just as that of awareness , depending on how far we come in our examination.† Our definition of Bewusstsein †runs as follows:† an awareness† that† remains constant in time, and related, an "ego" that also remains constant in time.
††††††††††† That is, the Bewusstsein †exists certainly as long as one can remember that he had had a memory.† The Bewusstsein† exists as far as one is convinced that it was he who experienced a particular memory at a particular moment in time.
††††††††††† According to our definitions, the terms Bewusstsein †and awareness are one and the same.† We will now strive to make more of the Bewusstsein† totally conscious .
††††††††††† All of the most diverse of awareness levels , the events separated by decades of time, dreams, thoughts, and feelings that one perceived have one special thing in common: they were experienced through one and the same person; oneself.
††††††††††† The Bewusstsein †itself is not a static, unchangeable quantity.†
††††††††††† Every new impression of awareness †enlarges the collection of its somethings .† This also has effect on oneęs future actions.† With every new impression, the contents of oneęs Bewusstsein† is enriched and a further awarness level can developp.††
††††††††††† How long has our Bewusstsein† been around?
††††††††††† Strictly speaking, we can only be certain that our Bewusstsein† (our awareness) was there, where we could have had totally conscious †memories.† But this would imply that the activities of our Bewusstsein† (i.e. our "being of the ego") only positively came into existence at the age of four or five, on average.† From then, it still wouldnęt be in consistent existence, but rather only at those times when one can remember totally consciously† that he was, without doubt, present.
††††††††††† One could not assume, for example, that he continuously attended grammar school, for even with the greatest of effort, one canęt remember everything (including every individual day).
††††††††††† Similar is the case when one sleeps:† what happens if one cannot remember any of his dreams?† Would this then mean that his body, which lay in his bed, wasnęt an "ego," nor contained his awareness , nor contained his Bewusstsein ? ††††††
††††††††††† If one were to drink too much or have an accident, it could happen that afterwards, he wouldnęt be able to remember anything that went on.† Friends who were there might relay how he acted, but he couldnęt know if he were actually the one (i.e. the ego, his awareness , his Bewusstsein ), because he doesnęt have any memory of the events.
††††††††††† We couldnęt blame him if† because of such incidents, he would then begin to doubt whether his Bewusstsein† is present with his body on earth (because his body was seen by many people, but of which he himself has no recollection).
††††††††††† The following could then occur:† All of a sudden, one recalls something he had forgotten for decades.† A memory of an event that took place when he was four. Because of this memory, further memories come into his total consciousness.†
††††††††††† Then, he thinks about an event that took place during grammar school which he has been conscious of since then.† From this stand point (i.e. he tries as hard as possible to understand how he wouldęve responded to his present considerations back then), he wonders if he (= his awareness ) had the feeling at that time that he hadnęt attended school.†
††††††††††† Immediately, it is clear--if he had doubted it--that he was certain at that time that he went to school every day.† Today he has only few conscious memories of all the days he went to grammar school, but now, seen from the point of view of a totally conscious memory from his school days, he doesnęt have to doubt his attendance.†
††††††††††† Also when one first wakes up, he might not have any recall of the activities of his awareness during sleep, but then it might happen that sometime during the day, he realizes (possibly, a scene from reality that triggers it ) that he had a particular dream.† With that, he will immediately realize that his awareness† also existed during sleep, and he will cease to doubt that this awareness--in the time while sleeping--was "dead" or "nonexistent."
††††††††††† Letęs say one is not in the mood, with a hangover, to totally consciously† remember something from the night before.† He can straighten it out after some days by becoming totally conscious† of what happened on this night, and in so doing, not only will he confirm that it was he (= his awareness ) who was there, but also that he behaved as totally consciously† as he would have under normal circumstances; taking into consideration, of course, the limitations he had from alcohol.† Despite drinking, he didnęt behave like another being, but rather acted with all his strengths and weaknesses (though itęs possible that he revealed more of these than others at this time).† He thought about how he got home, and realized that in going against his friendęs advice, he drove with his own car and drove like he always does, despite the restrictions from alcohol in his system.† (That is, the route home wasnęt a problem, nor finding the garage, etc.).
††††††††††† If he were then to look into all of the memories that became totally conscious †to him, it would be clear that it was he (and not someone else) who had experienced all of these situations.† And this, though he couldnęt have really said this was him with absolute certainty before this total consciousness† took place.
††††††††††† The fact that he had no recollection at all at first (i.e. unconscious memory), but then was able to remember afterall (i.e.made them conscious again), shows well how varied the awarenes levels† are structured, which we continuously change from one to the other.† It points out how difficult it is at times for one awareness level† (namely, the one in which he finds himself in "reality" right now) to arrive at another one which was long past (in remembering, he takes on a similar position that he had during his impression at that time.† If he would not do this, i.e. if he would constantly remain on his actual awareness level , he couldnęt achieve the memory (with the help of the now-CPU ); for in order to do that, he has to leave his present awareness level† for a short period of time.).
††††††††††† Letęs take an example that happens to every one of us.† One gets up, and in the process of waking, he is reminded of a particular dream.† A moment later, when he is totally conscious† again of the present situation (i.e. where he is, what his job is, what he has to do next (get ready, etc.), etc.), he canęt remember his dream anymore, although it was perfectly clear a few seconds ago.† He can attempt as much as he wants to remember, but it will all be in vain.†
††††††††††† This does not only show that are two different awareness levels .† It shows, moreover, how far these two are separated.
††††††††††† When one thinks about how far a simple dream within our awareness †can be separated from our normal, everyday awareness level, one can better understand that it is more difficult to make this totally conscious again the farther he goes back into his childhood memories.† Since that time, the awareness levels† have been separated so far from one another that it gets more and more difficult to remember.
††††††††††† We have access to a countless number of awarenes levels that differ from one another only very minimally (e.g. If one sits in front of the T.V. in the evening, then he is not on precisely the same awarenes level† that he would have later on during dinner).† On the other hand, they can differ so radically from one another that one can hardly be conscious of them at the same time (e.g. the awareness level† of the subjectęs present life and that of his second birthday; the awareness level† of his dream when waking up and the one two seconds later).
††††††††††† We constantly flunctuate between awareness levels .† Roughly, one can divide these changes into two kinds:† First, the continual change (oneęs awareness level† changes at least some with every new event in reality (first eating, then watching T.V.) ).† Second, we have the change of the awareness level,† caused by totally different situations, which is widely distanced from the first (e.g. a vacation in Italy, an errand at the bank, the last dream before waking up, childhood memories, etc..† All of these are totally different awareness levels).
††††††††††† We must know much more about ourselves in order to understand completely why certain awareness levels† lie so far from one another that one cannot even remember them.† Nevertheless, we will address three possible reasons.† These reasons are purely empirical, and because of this, they cannot be held as the only ones nor can they be held as the main ones.
††††††††††† One reason could be that the now-CPU† considers certain memories so irrelevant for oneęs present situation, that it doesęt find it necessary to make him totally conscious† of these experiences.††
††††††††††† Another reason might be that one had such a terrible experience that he would have avoided had it been at all possible; one that he would have preferred to have prevented.† But because it was not preventable, the now-CPU †at least chose not to concern the awareness †totally consciously† with it, since it already happened and therefore couldnęt be undone.†
††††††††††† An example of this reason is the story of an American woman, who at twenty-eight when looking at her daughter, becomes totally conscious† that when she was her daugteręs age, her own father had killed one of her playmates.† Despite having been totally conscious †of this event when she was eight, she had suppressed it till now.
††††††††††† The third reason might be that one (his awareness ) is so fixated on a particular awareness level† at the moment that there just isnęt any space for other, earlier-dated awareness levels .† One (i.e. the now-CPU) is so committed to his present awareness level , that he (i.e. the now-CPU ) doesnęt have any desire to exchange this awareness level †for another.
††††††††††† These were, as we already stated, only three possible reasons for the present difficulty of going from one awareness level† to another.† The true reasons are not presently in our ability to judge.† Itęs simply important to realize that the dificulty indeed is there.
††††††††††† We may assume, eventhough many impressions are no longer totally conscious †to us, that we (our awareness ) have taken in a number of further impressions.† Our Bewusstsein ęs experiences reach farther than our consciousness† knows.
††††††††††† Yet, how are we then convinced to be one and the same person since birth?†
††††††††††† We are told that one and the same body has changed since birth, but that one and the same body has stayed its own.† For our environment, we are therefore one and the same Bewusstsein , an awareness , because we possess a body.† For ourselves, we have in all probability been existent since the time of our birth, because it always happens that unconscious memories become totally conscious , and because of that not being conscious of these memories at the momoent doesnęt mean that a Bewusstsein --awareness --didnęt exist.† Besides this, we have adopted the argument, "where there is a body, there is continual awareness ."
††††††††††† The question that then comes up is, When exactly did the body and Bewusstsein† become one?† When did the Bewusstsein †take shape? (We have no idea how a Bewusstsein †is created; we donęt know if it is created in the first place; what is important for us is:† From what point can one have memories that make him totally conscious †that he indeed existed from that moment on?).
††††††††††† Not so long ago, it was assumed that the presence of oneęs awareness† was tied to the presence of a borne body.† That is, a child was granted awareness †at birth.† Through medical research, we have gone so far as to discover that an unborn moves and reacts to the moods of his mother; too, there are situations that take place around the mother, which the baby also realizes. From this, we can assume that the baby already has awareness† within the motheręs womb.
††††††††††† One would have to have totally conscious† memories of his existence in the womb in order to be totally convinced that his awareness† actually† existed when he was still in the womb.†
††††††††††† Even if one does not have totally conscious† memories, there is still another possibility for one to totally consciously† understand that he, as his present body, had awareness †even as an embryo within the womb.† In order to do this, he would have to figure that the awareness levels† he possessed at that time are even farther away from his present awareness levels† than those of the awareness levels †of his childhood.† The chance is even slimmer to remember these.† But even so, the chance still exists that he can become certain that he had awareness †at that time.
††††††††††† If one is not able to totally conscious †remember, then an ability of his awareness can:† the now-CPU .
††††††††††† The now-CPU is the ability to have access to the unconsciousness, and with this, it has the ability to process the experiences from that long- ago time in his present likes and dislikes.† Through this, when certain situations provoke a response from him that do not seem to be justified† through childhood experiences or later ones, he can examine these to see whether something occurred during his prenatal phase that might explain these emotional responses.†
††††††††††† If there are people (e.g. his mother), who lived at that time, who can validate that events took place which, from their substance, could induce the same responses, then he has the confirmation that he (his awareness ) existed even when his future body had not been borne yet.
††††††††††† Since doctors today have also come to the conclusion that certain situations in the prenatal phase effected the awarenes †of the unborn, we can assume that, at least in most cases, the awareness †did exist.†
††††††††††† But one can first be convinced himself (that his awareness† existed before he was borne) once he either has a totally conscious †memory of his existence within the womb, or when his likes and dislikes in certain situations can only be supported by experiences he had within the womb (since he couldnęt find that these likes and dislikes could be supported by any other experiences at any other time in his life other than during the prenatal phase).
††††††††††† Another question arises from the first: Does oneęs Bewusstsein †only reach to procreation?† Or did it come into being much later?† Perhaps even earlier?† That is, how far back does awareness† reach?
††††††††††† There are some who have participated in "re-birthing" and are convinced to have held other lives based on memories from earlier lives.† At the same time, there are a number of those who believe to have memories of other lives without even having done "re-birthing"† themselves.
††††††††††† We do not want to deal with the pro and contra arguments concerning this area; those interested can look to an abundance of reading material already available.† What we want to say is the following:
††††††††††† If reincarnation should exist and one were reincarnated (were at least in his second life on earth); we must figure that his awareness levels† from his previous life lie farther away from those today than those awareness levels† he had when he was an unborn.† Not only that, but "death" lay somewhere in between his present life and his previous one; he couldęve been an entirely different person in an entirely different environment.
††††††††††† Furthermore, when one works on the assumption that he has been reincarnated, and that there are reasons to be found for his likes and dislikes, but that they were not found in his up-to-now life nor in the time he was in the womb, he can conclude that these reasons are from another life.† But first, he have to analyze the reasons for his likes and dislikes; that is to know exactly why he likes something and why he dislikes something else.† After he has found one of the primary reasons for this, it must be evident that this reason did not take place in his present life. (There could be many reasons that effect his likes and dislikes in a particular situation; itęs only important for one to find the main reason or reasons in a particular situation, without which he couldnęt have responded as he did.).
††††††††††† If he is able to find this out on his own, he would probably assume--that is, if he doesnęt dispute the basic possibility that reincarnation exists--that his Bewusstsein †(awareness ) was also present in another life.
††††††††††† One can only gain direct, total conscious† certainty to have existed on earth in a past life if he has a total conscious† memory (that is, if he is able to get closer to this awareness level he had at that time this memory was his impression), in which he sees himself functioning there, just as he would through a memory in his present life.† It is important to see himself functioning there because when he does so, this gives him greater certainty that he, in fact, has a real memory of a former impression that he himself experienced, and not simply another impression that he misinterprets at the present time (e.g. a scene from T.V. that one considers a formerly-experienced memory).† At the same time, he could also only totally consciously† believe the memory (i.e. the particular form of memory) when he sees it quite clearly, after having distinguished the impression from dream, real life, T.V. images, newspaper reports, thoughts, etc..† One who cannot distinguish these, will not have the inner force to tell the difference between "real" memories from a former life (ones that one actually experienced) and imaginary memories.
††††††††††† He who is able to distinguish memories by their "sources" (i.e. where they come from; e.g. if they are experiences in their own right or simply scenes from a movie) will be convinced to have "lived" before based on a totally conscious† memory that he himself was active in, but which was not in his present life (as long as he does not reject the possibility of reincarnation).
††††††††††† What we cannot say here, and do not want to imply, is that reincarnation exists in all certainty, whereby every person has already experienced one or more lives.† What we could say is that every person--assuming that reincarnation actually exists, and that that which we just pointed out (to have memories which do not fit into oneęs present life) would bring us to the conclusion that the individual truly lived another life--has the primary ability (the now-CPU† can function as his tool) to "store" those memories.† Or: that every person can logically understand through his likes or dislikes, whose moods could not belong to particular situations in his present life (after this was clarified), that these moods could have resulted only from memories that he experienced himself in a former life.
††††††††††† In both cases, it should not be argued that reincarnation exists or exists for everyone.† Rather, only that one who is convinced that reincarnation is possible can become convinced that he existed in another "life" according to having correctly categorized all of his memories (that is, he knows precisely which memories belong to T.V., a speech, a news report, an experience he himself took part in, etc.), and by having a memory.† Or, secondly, that he has likes and dislikes which are not in any way connected with his present life.
††††††††††† This is, we do not want to claim that "reincarnation is a fact for everyone;" rather we will approach this inquiry from another angle.† We want to say the following:
††††††††††† If reincarnation should exist, then one can collect knowledge as we demonstrated.
††††††††††† A good example of how to realize the likes and dislikes which come from another life and existence, is the story of the eight-year girl we mentioned in chapter six.† She focused her fear on the outcome of the war, such as the bombing of cities.† The child never had any experiences relating to this in her previous life nor in the womb.† Equally so, her genes could not have caused this fear, because neither her mother nor her grandmother, who only experienced war without bombs, experienced any terror of bombing.† The only possibility left is that we are dealing with an individual whose previous life had to face a terror of bombing.
††††††††††† One could ask why we should look into the existence of previous lives; especially when the subject recalls frightening occurances such as the girl displayed.† We will not inquire into whether or not we should recall previous experiences here.† We only want to state that there are many traces which suggest that we have former lives, in such cases as the girlęs case shows--this is to assume that one holds reincarnation as possible.
††††††††††† With an exception of decisions, when transferred into reality, that donęt allow us any room to manoeuver, i.e. where only one feasible way exists to survive (the diagnosis of which is left to the job of the future-CPU), all of our decisions are dependent from former impressions or thought combinations (= everything which is not an "impression" or former impression (= memory) but which takes place in awareness ).
††††††††††† We will probably not be able to ascertain exactly why we act the way we do; that is, we will probably not be able to identify all of the precise reasons of our actions.† This is simply because (even if we believe to know totally consciously all of the reasons behind our decisions) there are so many unconscious experiences in our awareness, that we can never truly determine whether other unconscious experiences are also responsible for our decisions.
††††††††††† From time to time, our likes and dislikes (experience has shown that it is easier to determine the dislikes) can specifically match a particular subject matter, that one (we will again use the example of the eight year- old girl from the last two chapters) can rather easily surmise what type of events led to these likes and dislikes.†
††††††††††† Still, in these cases, the entire truth remains hidden (taking the example of the girl, this would have been all of her memories, in detail, that influenced her decision to perceive "fear" with the subject "war").† Perhaps the girl experinced even more terrible memories.† Perhaps less so, but which nevertheless increased her fear even more.† For example, the eight year-old could have had fear of loud noises (how, we will not attempt to clarify here) in a former life before the war took place, and the experience of a bombardment not only confirmed her fears, but incresed them considerably (assuming that reincarnation exsists).
††††††††††† †In any case, we cannot assume that when we observe how likes and† dislikes match a specific subject matter--and probably because of this, even assume that reincarnation exists--that we can totally consciously† understand all the reasons for these likes and dislikes.† That is, it is not clear which memories arouse which or how many precise values in the decision to perceive fear.
††††††††††† We do know that in nearly all of our decisions, and with this, all of our future experiences (impresions as well as thought combinations) are dependent on our former experiences.† We do not know, however, how this dependency works exactly.
††††††††††††††††††††††† (If someone said that in our inquiries we have established that the influence on our decisions is centered solely on that which we experience, and that we disregard the influence of heredity (i.e. the "gene"), then we would respond in the following way:
††††††††††††††††††††††† Heredity only influences effectively if the influence is identifiable in something else.† That is, if heredity takes at least a small part in making a decision to act (i.e. in reality) or in thought combinations.
††††††††††††††††††††††† A shared decision must express itself in some way (in order to be a shared decision at all).† Because every expression is an experience (in this case, that "one senses what one has to do"), "heredity" does not express itself in any form other than an experience itself).
††††††††††† If we were able to have definitive knowledge concerning our unconscious events, then we could much better understand (probably even know) how this dependency operates.† In looking at the very possibility of the influence of genes or of reincarnation, i.e. that which extends beyond one life-time, our attempt to totally consciously† experience everything from our former life (or from our genes), ignoring the fact that this could be above and beyond our own abilities to carry out, would last longer than the actual time we have in a single life-time.
††††††††††† Does this then signify that we--trapped within our past--are always characterized by the coincidence of the likes and dislikes in our decision-making?† Or, are there perhaps "truer" and "greater" designations within our existence?† Is there a true purpose that goes beyond "surviving for the purpose of simply indulging in our own desires as best we can?ď
† ††††††††† (The axiom to "survive" cannot be an attainable purpose in of itself.† Afterall, we die sooner or later, and if there were no substance to our existence outside of survival, then it would be rather unimportant if we were to die at this moment or one-hundred years from now, for the sole purpose directing our life would be unattainable.† Furthermore, the desires we feel show that our awareness† goes far beyond just "survival.").
††††††††††† Simply indulging in oneęs own desires does not alone satisfy some.† Many feel the need to assign greater purpose to their actions, as this general axiom †states.†
††††††††††† But what is the purpose they seek?†
††††††††††† Is not the need to attribute life with purpose instead of simply following their basic desires, a desire in of itself?
††††††††††† Let us not forget that all resolutions of this kind (= to designate oneęs life differently from that assigned to it (which is done by the now-CPU) by his past) directly involve the now-CPU , which tells us exactly what we should do.† And as weęve said, the now-CPU is dependent in its decision-making upon the former experiences of oneęs Bewusstsein.
††††††††††† One could agree to accept that only the now-CPU can relate what one has to do.† Nevertheless, by analyzing his desires, one could dig deeper for a better understanding of what the "true" (assuming there was one at all) purpose--probably hidden behind the surface of desires of our life could be.
††††††††††† In order to make use of that we have learned to now, let us look at Decision-Type N-2 .
††††††††††† Letęs look into why the subject actually went on vacation in Southern Italy.† Why would he have put so much energy into skiing in bad weather?† Afterall, neither activity is necessary to survive.† In most cases, it is not probable that one obtained the desire to ski from a previous life or from his genes, since this sport isnęt at all that old in the first place.† In addition to this, if the desire would have been transferred over from a previous life or from his genes, then the question arises how one could have found it enjoyable back then to travel down the slopes on wooden boards.
††††††††††† In order to apply those possibilities of awareness† we have indentified, one could assume that the sense of the Type N-2 decisions is only to atempt to change the awareness levels . That is, that awareness† wants to improve its own abilities (namely, that awareness could develop by repetitively changing the awareness levels ).† Aside our own speculations, it remains to be seen, however, why awareness† should have any interest in doing this.
††††††††††† To somewhat better be able to answer these questions, and to eventually come to further questions which belong to such a subject matter, we simply have to know more about ourselves.
††††††††††† Why donęt we take another example, whose existence again relies on the now-CPU ; namely, the concept of "art."
††††††††††† Everything that is not directly necessary for survival (in its substance, as well as in its form) is art.†
††††††††††† If one lives on bread and water (and just the most necessary of vitamins), then this cannot be associated with a form of art.† At that moment, though, when one chooses to prepare his meal with a combination of different ingredients in a variety of different ways, then this is an art form.† It would not be an art form if one were to eat with his fingers from a common pot, which is made to meet his demands (e.g. to be able to pick up the food without the pot crumbling apart) right away, and which meal is simply the staple food of his region (e.g. rice instead of bread).† As soon as one decorates the pot, or makes it into forms that goes beyond its utility factors, or when one eats with a fork instead of his fingers--then art is the function.
††††††††††† Just as in the cases of going on vacation and skiing, we can ask, Why since mankind has been around, have we gone through further cultural developments?†
††††††††††† Of course, this also leads to a shift in the awareness levels, even if more slowly and less frequently.† Could the purpose of our exsistence lie in becoming more and more sophisticated in our activities which are necesarry for survival?
††††††††††† If this were the case, wouldnęt the sophistication process be never-ending?†
††††††††††† That is, could we ever reach a point where the awareness levels† wouldnęt change any longer, simply because there werenęt any more?† A point where sophistication is no longer possible, becasue we have exhausted all of the variations that exist?† Doubtfully.
††††††††††† We could come up with a hundred speculations of which hidden but "true" purpose exists behind our desires, even those unconscious to us.† This would not only go beyond the structure of our investigation, it would also tell us nothing more than: in order to understand all this better, we have still so much to know about ourselves.
††††††††††† Good, one could say, letęs just completely skip the assistance of our now-CPU† in settling what the purpose of our existence could be.† Instead of the now-CPU , why donęt we substitute the future-CPU† in its place.†
††††††††††† If we do this, we would immediately see that we have no idea where to position the future-CPU .† We would have no starting point from which we could maintain that it functions without at least the minimal of help from the now-CPU .† Such a starting point is what we would need, however, in order to be able to discover--assuming that such a thing exists at all--an independent, true purpose of our life beihnd our present desires.† Even if we were to arrive at such a starting point (which in any case, would only be possible with the help of the now-CPU ), due to whatever awareness level† we are on at the present moment, we cannot be ensured that the now-CPU† would be prepared to take the path that the future-CPU† might offer it for finding the "true purpose" in our life.
††††††††††† It remains to be seen if there is any other purpose beyond the general-axiom : "surviving for the purpose of simply indulging in our own desires as best we can;" but, too, there is nothing to say that this axiom isnęt perfectly right, since it stems from personal preferences/desires.† This is not to say that the desires one busies himself wih day-in and day-out are the desires he "truly" wants.† Afterall, we have established that every awareness level †creates its own likes--and who is to say that one is on an awareness level† on which he can best feel the true desires of his awareness ?
††††††††††† The fact that we are even concerning ourselves with such questions (the purpose of existence) indicates that it lies in our unconscious interest (this interest could only occur because of the now-CPU) to want† to totally consciously† to deal with this question.† The question must also belong to our desires since we have established the resolution to even occupy ourselves with it.† Because of this, we have the same right to deal with this question as he who wants to go skiing, for example.
††††††††††† How shall we move on in getting closer to experiencing the true purpose behind it all?†
††††††††††† We can say that no matter if there is a purpose in life that goes beyond this general axiom , or a purpose that is concealed within it, it is indisputable whatever the case may be that the more we know about our original and essential "Being," the better chance there will be to come up with answers (if there are any) to these questions.
††††††††††† At this point the following question could arise:
††††††††††† Instead of looking for a vague "purpose" in life, of which no one really knows if it really exists or not, maybe it would better to understand this general axiom †(i.e. an axiom that should be relevant to all) through the future-CPU† so that it might be applied at once to everyone.†
††††††††††† Afterall, history has shown us: this axiom was never applicable to only the majority of human beings.† For those who the axiom did become reality for, it did not remain so over the course of their entire lives. †Even if this is the true purpose of existence, or there is another purpose, or if there is none at all--if it were possible to understand this general axiom †and then learn how best one can transfer them into reality, then the possiblity would exist that human beings could see that they possess so much happiness, like never before.
††††††††††† Would this not certainly make all of our inquiries worth something?
††††††††††† Nothing can be said against that.† Of course, it would be good if such a general axiom† existed that all people possessed.† But history has shown time and time again how one group of people has attempted to put this axiom into reality, but in so doing, actually produces the opposite effect for many as a result of their actions.
††††††††††† One might then think that in order to come to better recommendations for converting this axiom into reality, with the help of the future-CPU , one should anaylze those situations in which one attempted, but failed, to realize this axiom, to analyze, too, the undesired results.
††††††††††† Of course, one could reply that every conversion of an axiom that turns out bad should be critically investigated to be able to avoid these mistakes in the future.†
††††††††††† Here it is important to point out that all undesired situations ended up this way because before these situations occurred, people made the wrong decisions (either in deciding to carry out a particular axiom or not (now-CPU ), or in converting the already-made decisions into reality (future-CPU )† ), as the future situation later showed in not achieving the axiom (conscious or unconscious) "to aviod all things not desired".† (Even if a house were to cave in due to a landslide--the wrong decision would lie in having built the house in the wrong place, regardless if one couldnęt have calculated this catastrophy with modern equipment.).
††††††††††† If politicians who make bad decisions land a place at the top of a nationęs government, this could result in negative repercussions for the socity they run;† but it is also the result of a wrong decision that the citizens made in putting these people in such important positions.
††††††††††† Let us return once again to the substance of this axiom:† ďSurviving for the purpose of simply indulging in our own desires as best we can.ď
††††††††††† It is quite clear that every person has different preferences, and that the realization of the preferences of some would hinder those of another.† As long as people have different desires (but even if this werenęt the case), it will not be possible to fulfill all of them.† To now it has been unthinkable, and is really not very likely to happen in the future, that the desiresę transformation into reality would satisfy everyone, for the simple reason that the realization of some peopleęs desires often lead to the opposite effect for others.
††††††††††† At this point, we can say: we know why something cannot be realized (this general axiom† we have addressed)--whether another, "greater" purpose in our life exists or not, this axiom remains a seemingly logical axiom--but we do not know where to go from here.
††††††††††† In making all of our decisions, not only are we totally dependent on what our previous experiences prescribed (with the now-CPU ), but probably, not all of us will be able to carry out the dictations of our pasts at the same time here on earth.† From reasons we gave, this would be impossible.†
††††††††††† Therefore, not only are we captive to our own pasts, we are also imprisoned in not being able to act out our desires as we wish.†
††††††††††† If some have been so fortunate to fulfill their desires thus far, they cannot be sure that still others wonęt get in their way in the future, for othersę desires could still be in the process of becoming, and in their realization, could obstruct the contentement of those first fortunate (i.e. by displacing their desires).
††††††††††† Of course laws are made to ensure that everyone has equal access to the possibility to fulfill their desires, without hindering others to do the same in the process.† However, not only do these laws more often than not (nearly always) prevent people from totally (unobstructedly) living out their desires, history has shown us that these laws do not even come close in managing that everyoneęs desires be satisfied.
††††††††††† Aside from this, we should remember that desirs and preferences change.†
††††††††††† What one likes one day, he may not the next. †This means that one can establish a precise goal, but in reaching it might not desire it as he did before.† The path before one actually reaches this goal could be filled with new impressions that could change the importance it held before.
† ††††††††† Therefore, if one were so powerful so as to be able to fulfill all of his desires without being impeded, he would not able to know beforehand whether his desires will remain the same once they are fulfilled in reality.†
††††††††††† It is not entirely unlikely that all of oneęs desire for preferences is lost, and he is instead faced with a terrible feeling of emptiness, when the inability-to-desire sets in; a feeling that everything is dull, a feeling expressed in a way that the subject no longer desires anything.
††††††††††† It is not settled that this general axiom† (surviving for the purpose of simply indulging in our own desires as best we can) is the final and greatest principle of our Bewusstsein† (our awareness ), and with that, that it is the only "true" purpose of our life.† On the other hand, we can also not say that there is any other purpose.
††††††††††† We are, therefore, as clever as before.† In order that we can better understand these events we must figure out exactly that, what brings them about.
††††††††††† What or who causes these events?†
††††††††††† That is us.†
††††††††††† Who are we?†
††††††††††† We are awareness †(or Bewusstsein , or the ego).†
††††††††††† How then does awareness† bring about these situations?†
††††††††††† Through its activities.†
††††††††††† And how are its activities determined?†
††††††††††† Through decisions.†
††††††††††† And how are these decisions made?†
††††††††††† Through--with the help of the now-CPU--the past.†
††††††††††† What is then the past?†
††††††††††† The past is all oneęs experiences (i.e. all of the activities of the awareness† (impressions, memories, thoughts, feelings, dreams, etc.)† ).
††††††††††† We can thus maintain that the key to a better understanding of all of our desires, passions, activities and their translation into reality (but also into our awareness as the substance of dreams or thoughts is also dependent on former impressions) lie hidden in the activities of our awareness .
††††††††††† If we hope then to know more about "the original and essential Being", we will have to better understand the happenings that take place within our awareness .
††††††††††† This is exactly what we hope to do further into our investigation.† We do not want to scrutinize the substance of individual experiences, rather understand how our awareness functions. How we even come to experiences.† How we arrive at all that our awareness† does.
††††††††††† All Type-S† decisions are made for survival.†
††††††††††† These are the most primary of the decisions from the now-CPU , for the survival of itęs individual is imperative in being able to decide on any other desires.
††††††††††† The now-CPU† also makes Type-N† and N-2† decisions.† Here, however, its set of objectives are not as clear as in the case of Type-S† decisions.† Afterall, this has to do with doing what it "likes" to do.† This sort of pleasure is, furthermore, dependent upon all of its former experiences, for the now-CPU †can only "like" that which it can "know" through awareness.
††††††††††† The future-CPU† has a say in all of the now-CPU ęs decisions (see appendix).
††††††††††† In Type-S† decisions, the future-CPU† informs the now-CPU† from what range of possibilities it can choose from in order to survive.
††††††††††† For example, the future-CPU† knows that one could become, for example, a banker, but that he hasnęt a chance to become a pilot with an airline carrier.† It knows this for the simple fact that no one has the chance to pass the admission exam when he is legally blind, with an eye prescription of minus 8.
††††††††††† Once the now-CPU† has decided how it will survive (e.g. by becoming a banker), the future-CPU† will then make those necessary rules totally conscious (as good as our awareness †is able to do so--at least as many rules as awareness† is able to make totally conscious ), which he has to pay attention to in order to be a banker.
††††††††††† In Type-N† and N-2† decisions, the future-CPU† points out to the now-CPU† where the consequences of its decisions could lead to.† The now-CPU† will then determine if it wants to make this decision under these circumstances.
††††††††††† That is, the future-CPU† would report if Decision-Types N† and N-2 could result in the endangering of oneęs life (e.g. One might want to fly to London every weekend, but in so doing, he wouldnęt have any money left for food, clothes, or the rent).† The future-CPU† would also point out when Decision-Types N and N-2 †could lead to situations that contradict other Type-N† and N-2 †decisions of the now-CPU .
††††††††††† If the now-CPU† then made an effective Type-N or N-2 decision, then the future-CPU† would inform it how this decision can best be converted into reality.† (If one, for example, wants to go to the park, then the future-CPU would iform him how he could best get there.).
††††††††††† In other words, the now-CPU† gives all of our decision a set of objectives.
††††††††††† The now-CPU ęs choice of objectives is dependent, however, on all former impressions (i.e. memories); the present moment where one finds himself (i.e. impression), as well as all thought combinations such as ideas, feelings, etc. (that is, everything that takes place in our awareness† as new arrangements (= that different from the reproduction of former impressions)† ).
††††††††††† †Because experiences are decisive for our entire Being, we want to give attention to them now.† There are three basic types of experiences:
††††††††††† First, there are those we get through reality.† These are simply the impressions (from now on, we will call these "real-experiences," whereas "experiences" will stand for all types of experiences).
††††††††††† Second, we have memories (from now on, "recall-experiences").† They are nothing more than modifications of former impressions ("modifications" because in practice, hardly anyone is prepared to bring an experience back to reality based on the exact guidelines of the former impressions (i.e. in all its details)† ).
††††††††††† Finally, there are all the thought combinations of our awareness .† That is,† all that which is neither impression nor memory (from here on out, they will be called "extra-experiences").† These include dreams, ideas, thoughts, and all feelings, etc..
††††††††††† Recall-experiences †are nothig more than extensions of former real-experiences from in the past.† That is, without an impression, recall-experiences† would not exist at all.† The shape of all extra-experiencesę† contents are influenced by previous real-experiences .† Dreams, ideas, thoughts, and feelings consciously and, even more so, unconsciously assimilate all the contents of former impressions. We can say, therefore, that real-experiences† strongly influence recall- and extra-experiences .
††††††††††† For this reason, we want to look more carefully at real-experiences (i.e.the impressions) as events of our awareness , whose contents influence all other contents of awareness (at least from our present standpoint).
††††††††††† Impressions are, as far as the contents are concerned, all determined by that which we assimilate from reality.† Based on our present level of knowledge, how would we best define "reality?"
††††††††††† Reality is that from which we, with the help of our sense organs, receive information.† Reality is where all people--provided that they are able to use the same sense organs--have the principle possibility to similarily take in (i.e. nearly identically) the same somethings .
††††††††††† Considered purely practically (i.e. in everyday life), reality is that, from which we--depending on the state of our senses--can take in the most varied of impressions (where one who is blind will describe the way from his home to a store much differently from one who cannot hear).
††††††††††† Even in the case of those whose senses function in the same way, different people will often totally consciously† perceive the same incident in very different ways (this doesnęt mean, however, that this incident was not unconsciously stored identically in everyone).† If a couple went to a bar together and were asked afterwards what they noticed on the way, then each would most likely not have had the same exact experience in their consciousness.† Each would have noticed particular small details, which the other failed to obsreve.
††††††††††† A chemist would describe an event differently than a physicist, who would describe it differently than a "normal" person with his "normal" senses.† That is, if a wall is a solid mass for most of us, a chemist, who observes it in lines with his profession, would see it as a porous mass.† Where we see it as unmoving, he sees it--by means of the wallęs structure of atoms--as an indescribably fast-rotating object.
††††††††††† Letęs make a thought experiment:† Letęs take a living being, whose only possibility to sense impressions from outside is through the colors surrounding objects at different temperatures.† It has access to the same brain functions as we do (which must, however work with different sense impressions than those we work with); but whose physical exterior form is so constructed, that the atomic structure of its body is able to pass through objects that are solid for our bodies.† This being would give a much different description of the same reality which we are in.† Furthermore, it would act in a much different way than we would in this reality (= our world).
††††††††††† The stated points do not say anything more than the fact that we should not accept that reality that we perceive through our senses be the sole possible and true description of our world.† Our impressions, which subsequently influence everything else in our awareness† (and in this way also our future actions), are determined by a reality which our impressions do not even experience "accurately."† That is, they donęt experience reality as it "really" is.
††††††††††† The question is then as follows:† What is the true description of reality?†
††††††††††† Or, is it not necessary to know for discovering more about our impressions?† Can we leave it as such:† The structure of our sense organs determines how we "see" reality, and therefore, how our impressions are made.† In combination with reality, the structure of our sense organs create that, which first produces an impression and then consequently influences our decisions and with that determens which experiences we will have.
††††††††††† Is everything that takes place within us, therefore, the result of this interaction?
††††††††††† We do know though that, seen from a medical point of view, the sense organs are "forced" to create special signals in the presence of an object.† But signals, however, are finally processed in the brain as impressions.
††††††††††† The signals of our sense organs, which can only exist because of the presence of objects,† cannot alone (i.e. every signal on its own) effectively declare anything concerning the object (or objects).† For without an ordering of the signals in a particular pattern within our brain, the disordered signals couldnęt result in any definitive message (= an impression).
††††††††††† † ††††††††† (Because the presence of an object is responsible for the signals of our sense organs, we will describe the term "signal" from now on as that which our sense organs transmits to us from the object, as well as that, which the object matter can "force" our sense organs to work on.).
††††††††††† We maintain, that the sense organs alone cannot process the signal (of the objects of the future impression) to that, which we then receive as an impression.
††††††††††† Why do we believe this to be the case?
††††††††††† It is apparent that when one, for example, stands in front of a building that he can estimate (provided that he "sees"; i.e. that he has the needed sense organs at his disposal) how "tall" this structure is.
††††††††††† How can he estimate the size of this building (i.e. know whether or not it is smaller, bigger, or the same size as he, etc.)?
††††††††††† If the building itself (i.e. the signals oneęs sense organs records from it) contained the information of itęs own size, then still, the signals would not give the viewer the "real" (that is, if we assume that the building is "really" as big as what it seems to him) information concerning this, because the "real" information would exceed the very dimensions of his own body (since the building is much bigger than his body).
††††††††††† What do we then receive from the signals (assuming that the signals alone would give us the information we needed for the impression we have)?
††††††††††† The signals would then at least give us the proportions measured against one another.† They would say how large the balcony is in comparison to the the window, the window compared with the doors, the doors with oneęs body, etc..† The signals, therefore, would at least determine how everything is connected to each other.
††††††††††† Neither a door, nor a column, nor a balcony, nor anything else--if this object stands on its own and cannot be compared with something else--can say if this object is built as a miniature-reproduction or as one oversized.
††††††††††† One needs comparison in order to do so.
††††††††††† This comparision is not supplied by the signals of the object, however.
††††††††††† If the signals of objects would have comparisons within themselves, then they would have the same exact measurements within themselves.† But the measurements are not given with these signals.
††††††††††† Thus, the ability to compare is "in us" ourselves.† Furthermore, this ability to compare is independent from that, which the signals of our sense organs supply us.
††††††††††† With this knowledge, we can now say: not everything that we "really" see is "made" from the signals alone (which are taken in by our sense organs) into the objects as they appear to us.
††††††††††† Letęs look further.
††††††††††† An airplane doesnęt determine on itęs own where it is located.† If we were to see one in the sky, then we would only know where it is with further reference points (e.g. from where we are observing it), for the planeęs position cannot be deduced from the plane alone.
††††††††††† If two planes were then to fly by eachother, how would we know (or at least estimate) the distance?
††††††††††† Neither the signals of the planes nor the signals of the air tell us the distance between the two planes.
††††††††††† Why not?
††††††††††† Because also the signals of the air cannot determine the "distance" without being compared to others.
††††††††††† This means that also in this case, the signals (which our sense organs take from the air and the plane) are not enough to give us a picture that we can then "really" experience as we "really" experience it.
††††††††††† But not only in comparison are the signals of objects too few.
††††††††††† If we look at an object alone (this means without comparing it with other objects) it cannot, based on its signals alone, be made to that as it appears to us at all times.
††††††††††† †Because we view a building, for example, from a specific standpoint at a particular time in certain weather conditions.
††††††††††† Letęs assume that the only thing we "see" (= as it appears to us) are what the signals of the building give.† The following would occur:† Only these materials, put together into this context, seen from my standpoint, can transmit those "signals," which we can interpret† in that way which we "do" in reality.
††††††††††† But now we can look at a picture that was taken at the same time, with the same weather conditions, and from the same perspective, and with this, have a very good impression of the building.† We cannot "smell," feel the wind, or "hear" what was there, but if we first saw the photo and then later see that building in "real life" from the same position and under the same conditions--then we could say, from a total visual standpoint, that this building looks just like the one we saw in the photo.
††††††††††† But the picture of the building in the photo is made of completely different materials than the building materials of the actual building!††
††††††††††† In addition to this, the "actual" size of the balcony, for example, is different than that in the photo.† Furthermore, everythingis two-dimensional in the photo, and still, we "know" from the photo that a tree is in front of the building, etc..
††††††††††† This means if all objects were to send out their own special signals, and these would lead ďwithin usď--without the smallest amount of "processing"-- to that which we call ďrealityď,† the photo would never be able to transmit the same identical information that the object expresses in reality.
††††††††††† Although all the sizes were smaller in the photo, it is impossible that that, which in reality we call from its form a "balconyď can be transmitted only by the signals of a chemically-coated paper and can lead to the same message (namely to that which we identify in reality as "balcony") (with the exception of smaller measurements).
††††††††††† If the objectęs signals alone were responsible for the establishment of its appearances (and the sense organs would have only to read these signals in the "right" way), then the signals from chemically-coated paper would not be able to give the same exact "message" (= "this is what the building looks like from this angle") that the "real" building does.
††††††††††† This fact proves that in addition to signals, there must be an ordering-function "within us."
††††††††††† When observing reality unbiased, it is necessary to accept that the signals, which our sense organs transmit, are not alone able to give us the reality we "see."
††††††††††† Instead, we need something for all the forms we "really" see:† "assimilations".
††††††††††† Assimilations are ordering-functions "within us" that arrange the signals that our sense organs take in into those forms, which then appear to us as "real" objects (as the comparison between the photo of the building and the "real" building proves).
††††††††††† That is, we need the most diverse of principles (assimilations ) that can be applied, based on practical necessity, in order to combine with somethings† (= totally undeclared; "containers" for everything--here, for the "signals" of the object ) to "produce" particular forms (objects) that we are familiar with through our impressions.
††††††††††† In consequence, this shows that the assimilations , without which the signals of our sense organs could never be put into any kind of order, are not only valid for all individuals (i.e. at least, all people), that also means that all individuals must have "identical" assimilations.†
††††††††††† This is because we will only be able to come to total agreement on a description of reality once all individuals have access to identical assimilators.† (Even if this agreement is not absolute, it is still far-reaching.)
††††††††††† If everyone would organize his sense impressions based on his own purely subjective form (= the assimilation† that is only valid for each one), then each of us would get a completely different picture of reality.†
††††††††††† If no one were able, neither through the assimilations† nor through subjective forms, to harness the signals, then no one would ever be able to even have an impression that he could consciously or unconsciously work with; i.e. seen from a practical point of view, he wouldnęt have any impression at all.† Awareness† couldnęt even make sense of the sense organsę signals without some kind of ordering of them, to each other and within themselves.† This kind of ordering is only possible because awareness possesses† assimilations.
††††††††††† Assimilations† (actually, inherent laws concerned with the design of the sense impressions valid for everyone) and not purely subjective forms must be responsible to get an impression of reality.
††††††††††† The question then becomes:† What exactly are these assimilations† and where do we find them?† (They must at least be valid for all human beings; otherwise, there wouldnęt be any kind of reality that we recognize).† Can we find these assimilations† in reality?
††††††††††† Hardly ever.† How can something give us these assimilations, when it itself "comes into being" (for reality "comes into being," as we know it, only then when the sense impressions are put together within our brain) through these assimilations ?† How can we dervive assimilations† from reality, when we first need the help of the assimilations† in order to create this reality?† This is simply impossible.
††††††††††† Because these assimilations† could not derive from "reality," they must be inherent within us.† And because, we as human beings with the same sense organs, receiving the same (or at least very similar) impressions, we have to have† assimilations† and not purely subjective forms.
††††††††††† We will have explained this so far.† There is one instrument that provides an excellent example of how this process works.† It helps us to better understand that the assimilations† only take place within us, and no where else.† That instrument is the T.V..
††††††††††† Letęs take the example of a live-broadcast.† In this scene, we see a camera pan, as seen from the top of hill, of a small town that reaches as far as the foot of the hill.† We assume that we havenęt seen this town before, neither in real life, nor in T.V..
††††††††††† Everyone watching will say:† Look, the have great weather-- blue skies and sun, beautiful houses, etc..† Everyone will be convinced, and rightly so, that the scene (the place and its suroundings) of this area looks exactly as the camera has presented it.†
††††††††††† And yet, "in reality," all we have seen on the screen are hundreds of thousands of colored dots, each of which is the combination of three primary colors.† in addition to this, the dots change their color scheme every second up to twenty-five times (so many individual pictures can be shown within one second of viewing-time).†
††††††††††† Every one of these dots, from which the picture is created, actually has nothing in common with the real scene (the real scene that all dots combined have transmitted).
††††††††††† In "reality," therefore, what we see on the screen is only a vast number of the very diverse and quickly-changing colored dots.† Furthermore, none of these dots, considered on their own, give any evidence of the "actual" scene of the small town.
††††††††††† The fact that one, just as all people on earth, can recognize structures on the screen, doesnęt at all have to do with the truly exsisting objects in the town, since he actually doesnęt come into contact with these objects.†
††††††††††† Because of this, one can not be forced by those objects in some way to register (however this would work) these objects to that as they are in reality.†
††††††††††† This leads us to the conclusion that he recognizes these structures because of assimilations† (= principles we are subjugated to in producing impressions).
††††††††††† That means that T.V. requires more than simply a sensory recording of colored dots.†
††††††††††† (In order to "really" see these dots on the screen (i.e. see them as they appear to us), we need an ordering function as well (namely assimilations) for this process within us that establishes exactly which colored dots take what position.†
††††††††††† For our explanation of the assimilation ęs mechanisms, it doesnęt matter if we use the processes that take place in the "conversion" of that (whatever that may be) which comes before the presence of an impression--a "pre-reality"--into reality (in this case, it is the "two-dimensional ordering of the colored dots in an arrangement that we can all see"), OR if we use the conversion of artificial "pre-reality" (in this case, it is the ďtwo-dimentionalď ordering of the colored dots in an arrangement that we can all see) into artificial "reality" (in this case, the T.V. picture as it "appears" to us).†
††††††††††† In both cases, "pre-reality" into reality or artificial "pre-reality" into artificial "reality," the assimilations †are necessary.† This is so, because without assimilations, we couldnīt produce any pictures from already arranged dots (and therefore, expect that other people could produce the exact same picture) just as we couldnīt produce any impressions of the screen with specially-ordered dots.†
††††††††††† The fact that we take the example of artificial reality instead of reality as it is to explain how these assimilations function is because the artificial reality allows us to make this processes more visible.)
††††††††††† Letęs assume that we are not yet convinced that we are actually the ones who, by going through assimilations† and with the help of our sense impressions, can construct reality.† Letęs assume, furthermore, that reality is as we register it.† Letęs consider the operation of a T.V. in this aspect.
††††††††††† From a vast number of possible combinations of dots, we are able to create that which corresponds to "reality."†
††††††††††† One thing that helps us to do this is an ability within us which allows us to order somethings (in this case the dots) in their relationship to one another.†
††††††††††† To understand the fact that an ability within us is responsible for this ordering, we need only to show a pile of rocks that fills up the entire screen.† One wouldnęt know if certain rocks occupy a space of twenty centimeters or twenty meters until another element (e.g. a person) came into the field of vision, which we could then use to to determine the proportions.
††††††††††† That on the screen, we are able to experience a house as a house, a car as a car, or a hill as a hill is because there is a grouping of the dots into a form that corresopnds to our ordering of a house, a car, or a hill.
††††††††††† The dots on their own say nothing of what forms can be made of them.† Which dots are integrated into which units (some dots make a house, others a car, etc.) is not obvious simply from a two-dimensional ordering of the dots.†
††††††††††† Forms (which are nothing more than assimilations ) are therefore necessary.†
††††††††††† Because we cannot deduce these forms from the dots, but on the other hand in reality we know that the picture which appears on the screen corresponds to the area (e.g. the town) in "reality," we must have assimilations, and these can only be found in us.
††††††††††† We cannot say, moreover, that the colored dots correspond to our sense organs (eyes) in such a way that the sense organs can compose the dots themselves.† Our eyes could register the dots well, but composing them in the right proportions (i.e. that the composition corresponds with reality) from all the hundreds of thousands of possible structures first takes place in our brain (i.e. awareness ).
††††††††††† The point is:† How can someone compose something in such a way that one is able to develop pictures from it, which are identical with reality, but with which reality he has never had any exposure to?† This is only possible because there are particular principles (assimilations ) within us that allow us to put certain forms into being.
††††††††††† The points of light are first composed within us into units (e.g. a house, a car, etc.) and classified (e.g. that is a house, that is a car, etc.).† It is us who first determine which colors belong to particular objects, and which do not.†
††††††††††† Let us say that a red and white flag is in front of a multi-colored house among other houses in our camera shot.† Those of us who are watching T.V. say that the red and the white in this case, do not belong to two different objects, but rather to a single object.† We claasify this object as a flag.† We also observe a red on another white, but decide that in this case, they are two seperate objects--two houses.† Etc., etc..
††††††††††† If a two-dimensional figure ordered from colored dots is suddenly seen as three-dimensional, this also shows that assimilations exist within us.††
††††††††††† For example, letęs assume (and rightfully so, since such is reality) that the flag in front of a primarily red-painted building is there, and a more subdued white building is hidden in the background.† In the foreground, a blue car with black stripes drives by from left to right.† If no assimilation† (this could be a fundamental assimilation or one which developed from the fundamental assimilation †) existed, whereby "an object† can be next to, in front of, or behind another object," then we couldnęt understand a two-dimensional ordering of the dots as a three-dimensionally classified object.
††††††††††† This cannot simply occur within the eyes alone, where we would only at best have unordered ponts of light.† No, only we classify objects to that as they appear to us.
††††††††††† And what does this then lead to?
††††††††††† First of all, in our search for assimilations, we have found another principle with which we are already familiar. This principle is responsible for doing that which is necessary for a picture to appear on the T.V. screen at all.† Namely, putting together and making the "right" combination (i.e. in our last example, this would be that combination which corresponds to a real picture of the small town) unbelievably fast from a vast number of possible combinations.†
††††††††††† This principle is nothing other than the CPU.
††††††††††† Remember our definition:† The CPU† is the ability of awareness to access the somethings , combine them, and make a decision.
††††††††††† Here, the CPU† takes the somethings† (namely, the points of light); combines these according to assimilations †(the CPU† itself is an ability of awareness , not a "visible" (= recognized by the senses) expression of awareness (for we only experince the CPU through itęs effect)† ); sees which assimilations with the past (= former impressions) could be adequate to determine which assimilations (actually, which special organization of the signals should be combined with special assimilation combinations) it will accept as "real" (i.e. those which would also be met in "reality").
††††††††††† This means that the CPU can also "order" assimilations.† That says the CPU †has "control" over assimilations, in so far as it constructs our "reality" from combining them every day.
††††††††††† This CPU (remember, although we distinguish the CPUs based on their effect (now-CPU , future-CPU ), all CPUs †are a "single" ability of our awareness ) is similar to the future-CPU† in its effect.† Similar in that this CPU †first goes through the possible principles and chooses them based on the chance that they can also be found in reality.
††††††††††† At the same time, this process is a decision, for when the CPU† assigns particular dots to certain objects, it decides on something that could have just as easily been ommitted or simply have been carried out differently (assigned other dots to other objects).
††††††††††† Why does the CPU† even want to get a picture of reality from T.V.?† Why doesnęt it arrange the colored dots in different combinations (i.e. another grouping of the assimilation )?† Itęs persistence to arrange only† "real pictures" from T.V. is not necessary for survival.† It is a Decision-Type N-2, therefore, that the now-CPU† makes to want to watch "reality" on T.V..† As often is the case, the now-CPU ęs reasons for this are unconscious.
††††††††††† In order to make it clear what the CPU , now-CPU , and future-CPU† stand for, from now on the term "CPU" will stand for everywhere where the CPU† functions in two ways (manifestations).† First, where it creates impressions from the signals of the sense organs through diverse assimilations . †Second, where the CPU compares all possible arrangements of the most diverse of assimilations† with former impressions (e.g. when watching T.V.), and in so doing, comes up with† a single arrangement that most likely corresponds--i.e. comes closest--to "reality."
††††††††††† We will use the term "CPU-general" where the CPU †functions without specifying to which result this will lead; that means that the term "CPU-general" stands for a "general way of contemplating all of the possible CPU -mechanisms."†
††††††††††† Eventhough the consequences of the CPU and future-CPU are rather similar, we distinguish the two because the CPU† shows even more original modes of operation: the CPU †is awareness ę ability to first be able to reach impressions by transforming signals with combinations of assimilations into impressions.
††††††††††† One could accept that the assimilations† are within us, but still argue that this is only because we can find former impressions (i.e. our memories) and derive our assimilations †from these.
††††††††††† There are two possible answers in response to this.
††††††††††† The first answer would be that we have the assimilations †with us and, therefore, we can bring the signals of the sense organs into forms, through which the signals can become impressions.
††††††††††† There is a convincing reason for comparing the vast number of possible combinations of the signals with the most diverse assimilations on T.V. with former assimilation-combinations† (that is, former impressions): through vast number of possible combinations from assimilations, one must, if one wants to experience the picture of reality on T.V., order the assimilations watching T.V. in the same way as one orders them in "real life."†
††††††††††† This is why the CPU †has to carry out the most diverse of assimilation arrangements in order to test all of them to determine which assimilation arrangement would best fit at the present moment--based on former impressions--to show the same thing as that which is found in reality.
††††††††††† The CPU† can, for example, draw a circle, or from other dots a square, etc., from the many dots on the T.V. screen based on the assimilation: "One can draw a circle," "One can draw a square," "One can draw polygons," etc..† (All of these assimilations† are randomly chosen.† They do not claim in any way to be original-assimilations. (= assimilations which are in no way assembled from any other assimilations, but which assemble other assimilations)).
††††††††††† The CPU †doesnęt have to follow a border which are bound by the colors in the picture.† It can draw a circle within that which we describe as a "real" flag; that is, draw a circle and simply arrange the other red and white dots of the "real" flag differently.† With the help of further assimilations , the CPU† can take the left-over dots from the flag and make parts of houses, etc..† In other words, the possible combinations are endless.
††††††††††††††††††††††† (We should be reminded here of what we already said concerning the application of the T.V. picture as an explanation for the existence of the assimilation : namely, that the existence of certain "two-dimensionally-ordered dots that change their colors on the screen continuously"-- first comes into being from particular combinations of assimilations .
††††††††††††††††††††††† We are not concerned here with the condition of this "reality" stemming from "pre-reality" (whatever this might be), but rather with the creation of "artificial reality" from "artificial pre-reality" (here: an already made combination of the most diverse colored dots).† We are not concerned here because both are cases of the same principle; namely, the combining of the most diverse assimilations .).
††††††††††† Because the assimilations (according to which assimilations the CPU combined and what was the outcome of these combinations) can put together the form of circles, squares or polygons, etc. instead of a flag--that is, instead of a flag that could just as well create a bike, a car, or something else from the same dots (or at least a part of these dots)--the CPU not only has to be prepared to use the most different kinds of assimilations, but it must also (if it wants to find "reality" through the T.V.) compare all the possible combinations of the assimilation with each other, as well as compare them with all the possible memories in order to find which combination of the assimilation† could best represent that which is found in "reality."
††††††††††† We can see well here what an incredible data processing job the CPU† manages (because of the huge number of possible varieties).† Itęs not only impressive that the CPU †in doing so uses mainly unconscious data, but also that it almost always lands the "right" (i.e. that which corresponds to "reality") result from such a huge quantity of information.
††††††††††† The first answer only shows that it is necessary (at least for watching T.V.) to possess assimilations within ourselves.† It doesnīt help us to find facts to prove the assumption that awareness hasnīt possessed assimilations from the very beginning.
††††††††††† The second answer would maintain that we are only able to have impressions because we had already recorded similar forms necessary in creating a picture of "reality," for example, from the T.V. picture.†
††††††††††† This possibility does not claim that there are no forms (i.e. assimilations ) in our awareness .† If we didnęt have any forms, then we couldnęt put anything in order.† Instead, it claims that this assimilation is simply deduced from former impressions.†
††††††††††† (It is clear that this possibility actually refers to deduced assimilations† and not simply to the whole of a specific object (e.g. these specific shoes, this specific flag):† if it were simply the specific objects that we recognize and not the assimilations† which make these objects possible in the first place, then we would only be able to identify the exact same objects in the T.V. that we had already had as impressions.† In other words, it would be impossible to see a house if its appearances were in the slightest way different than those one had already recognized as houses.).
††††††††††† If the assimilations are derived from former impressions, then this means that one can always store assimilation† in his awareness.† This does not tell us whether there are assimilations that belong to the fundamental principles of oneęs Bewusstsein prior to all impressions, but it does say: one can hold on to and store assimilations .
††††††††††† The question then arises how one even arrives at impressions, from which the assimilations †would want to derive (for without--at least subjective--assimilations, one can never hope to arrive at the impressions one needs in order that assimilations †be derived from them in the first place).
††††††††††† The second answer shows that it is impossible to derrive assimilations from impressions.† Because of this we can now say:† There must be specific original-assimilations† (from which the umpteen assimilations †can stem, which we need for everyday life) that have been with our Bewusstsein† (our awareness ) since the first experience.† Otherwise, we would have never even arrived at impressions through our sense organs alone.
††††††††††† Why must there have been original assimilations?† Why must have countless other assimilations† have stemmed from these?
††††††††††† On the one hand, we know that all assimilations which we deal with every day, are formed themselves from sub-assimilations. (The form of a car, for example, is constructed from the forms of tires, a steering wheel, seats, etc.).
††††††††††† In other words, further investigation should prove that we can deduce these assimilations †into even smaller sub-assimilations , and then these sub-assimilations† into still smaller sub-assimilations† , and so on.
††††††††††† On the other hand, we know--as we have just ascertained--that all assimilations †have to come "from us."† This also gives rise to the fact that at least the possibility for all assimilations , that we can have, had to have existed "within us" (i.e. our Bewusstsein , our awareness) since our first experience.
††††††††††† †"New assimilations" could have only come into being after this "point," when all possibilities were "within us" already at the beginning (i.e. from the very first experience of our Bewusstsein ).
††††††††††† We still do not know, however, how we even arrived at assimilations , but we do know the following:† We can deduce our assimilations† into smaller and smaller sub-assimilations.† This can go on until we arrive at sub-assimilations† that can no longer be taken apart.† These we will call the original-assimilations .
††††††††††† That does not say that we can assume that the original-assimilations† on their own are enough to form the world how we perceive it nowadays.† It means only that these assimilations† that we experience today necessarily consist of original-assimilations† (and others that we did not sufficiently analyze to this point, such as the CPU that integrates individual assimilations† into connected-assimilations , and, moreover, is responsible that normal-assimilations† derive from original-assimilations ) that are with us (or, at least, their possibilities) from the first experience.
††††††††††† One could still object.† All recall- and extra-experiences† need assimilations †which are in ourselves.† Otherwise, we would never have memories.† No ideas, thoughts, nor even feelings (in order to even perceive feelings, we need assimilations† (i.e. an ordering)† )† would be possible.†
††††††††††† But what do the impressions of "true reality" look like as opposed to the "artificial reality" in the T.V. picture?† Could it not also be possible that reality itself has an effect on us, whereby it can force us to to order its signals (which we receive through our sense organs) according to the assimilations† within it?
††††††††††† If this were the case, no one, who has the same sense organs that everyone else has, would be able to describe an experience (e.g. a street scene observed from the patio of a restaurant) differently from all the others.†
††††††††††† On top of that, it wouldnęt be possible--when reality had direct access to us--to concentrate on oneęs own ideas, to sleep and not register "reality" totally consciously† (as one does when awake), nor to dream instead of being continually influenced by reality.†
††††††††††† If reality were to compel us to perceive according to its rules, then we wouldnęt be able to escape its grip.† That is, our entire totally conscious awareness would continually be at the beckonning of the "real world," and wouldnęt have any room left for something else.
††††††††††† If there were asimilations† that were forced on us through reality, then we also couldnęt watch T.V. nor have recall- and extra-experiences .
††††††††††† What would the case then be if it were possible for us to break away from realityęs control over us (how it would work is difficult to determine, for there wouldnęt even be a control if we could escape it), and instead deal with recall- and extra-experiences according to our own pleasures; that is, to confront the consequences of our own assimilations.
††††††††††† We wouldnęt be able to, for example, develop an idea in the first place, e.g. to draw a dog--that is, have a precise image in our thoughts of what this animal looks like so that the idea can be transferred to paper (assuming we can draw a corresponding image), and where the produced picture would be expected to match the same image.†
††††††††††† For the idea and the form it generates would be produced within us from our own assimilations.† And how could we recognize an idea in reality (which only exists because we use certain assimilations (which were ours) ) if this idea, made "real" is dependent on completely different assimilations† (namely those from reality) to become our impression (Namely, the dog drawn on the paper)?† This is not possible.
††††††††††† Not only the signals of the sense organs, but also our own assimilations are, therefore, absolutely necessary for all impressions.
††††††††††† No impression would exist without assimilation.† It is, therefore, only understandable that our contact to assimilations (i.e. at least original-assimilations, from which all other assimilations† today stemmed) began with the very first impression of our awareness †(our Bewusstsein).
††††††††††† A contradiction--nevertheless, one that seems like it--arises here, for we have shown that the CPU† combines the most diverse of assimilations† to make an impresion, which then appears to us (i.e. the signals of the sense organs are combined (from an infinite number of possible varieties) in a way that are revealed to us then as an impression).
††††††††††† By coming to agreement with other people in reality, that shows that all people have to deal with principally the same assimilations .† If this were not so, we would not be able to create classifications that everyone can understand as classifications.†
††††††††††† If one were to, for example, draw a circle and a square, then everyone would immediately know that they are two different geometrical forms that were given two-dimensional form on paper.
††††††††††† We would never be able to meet up with other people on a frequent basis in reality if we did not have the basic ability to have the same assimilations .† In other words, every individual should have access to the same original-assimilations †no matter if they all have access to the same number of† connected-assimilations †(At this time in our investigation, this is an assumption taken from the experiences in reality; we cannot say with certainty that this assumption is a general principle applicable to every human being).
††††††††††† We cannot come to a permanent agreement with our felow human beings based on this alone.†
††††††††††† For, because the assimilations† are in us, their compositions can also only take place within us.† That is, just as we put them together.† How, though, can we come to agreement with other people when every individual arranges his own assimilations †from within, i.e. without the influences from outside?
††††††††††† Because reality consists of objects, from which each gets its own special form through the manner in which the signals of the sense organs are combined with very specific assimilations (from a vast number of possible assimilation-combinations)--objects cannot determine their own "arrangement" (i.e. decide exactly how they are composed).† The objects, and therefore, reality, cannot influence the particular way in which we combine assimilations in every case.
††††††††††† Who or what does then?†
††††††††††† For at the same time, there is agreement among the Bewusstseins.† There must, therefore, be a reciprocal form of influence.† Because we make every object, as it appears to us (the sensory manifestations of other Bewusstseinn† are clearly applicable here as well), and at the same time see† "reality" similarly (or even the same) as other Bewusstseins, so the agreement between Bewusstseins has to concern the effects of their CPUs !
††††††††††† This agreement concerns the effects of the CPU† because it is "responsible" for how the most diverse of assimilations† are combined (i.e. which assimilations †are combined with which others).
††††††††††† Only that just explained makes it possible that the contradiction,--on one hand, we make objects into that as they seem to us, while on the other hand, we come to an agreement with our fellow human beings--can be solved!
††††††††††† And now it is also clear why we can similarily perceive in reality, and yet sometimes (always?) have not come to a hundred percent agreement with others.† Because we are the ones who can arrange the assimilations† differently, we can also always leave this agreement; or even can add further somethings †(=purely subjective ones, extra-experiences ).
††††††††††† We do not yet know how this agreement functions.
††††††††††† The following summarizes our knowledge to this point:
††††††††††† Assimilations† take place "within us" (whose original-assimilations† we first have to find).† We need these for all real-† recall- †and extra-experiences.† They are combined by the CPU †and produce the experiences as we perceive them.† In the case of real-experiences, the CPU uses the same assimilations as all other Bewusstseins, †with which we are in agreement .
††††††††††† We can now dedicate ourselves to the following question:† Which original-assimilations† (those which give rise to all other assimilations ) are there, which have been in our awareness† since our very first impression?
††††††††††† We said that it is us who puts our world together as it appears.
††††††††††† We carry assimilations †within us which first "process" the signals of the sense organs into that, which then appears to us as impressions. †That means, we do not produce objects in our world stone by stone, mountain by mountain, out of nothing--but we give everything in our world its shape, as that which appears to us.
††††††††††† †This means that we do not know, at least not at the present time, how all of the objects in our world are "truly" structured, who has created them, nor why all of the objects are present.† We only know that we are the ones who make them as they appear to us; and we do this with the signalęs most diverse of combinations within our assimilations .
††††††††††† We will not attempt right now to explain how we (i.e. our CPU ) put the assimilations† together in detail; rather, we will first try to see if we can track down the original-assimilations† (i.e. assimilations† from which all other assimilations† are derived).†
††††††††††† In other words, we are set in search for the original-assimilations† in order that later, once we understand which and how many original-assimilations† there are, we are able to figure out how far we can hope to understand how their application "builds" our world.
††††††††††† One concept that immediately comes to surface in this context is that of Space .† This concept is the premise for us to even be able to come into contact with objects.† For without Space , there wouldnęt even be a place for something else next to us.
††††††††††† It is necesary to point out here that in common day use this concept has become accepted to represent something that doesnęt exactly correspond to that which we intend here.
††††††††††† In everyday life, this "concept" is not only sometimes synonomous with "room," it also signifies a measurable size.† One makes the connection between space and the qualities of being "three-dimensional," "measurable" (this is a meter, this a kilometer, etc.), etc..
††††††††††† In itęs most original definition, however, assigns its meaning as "the possibility of being side-by-side"; and this is the conception we will employ (of course, based on the hierto results from our examinations).
††††††††††† Why the "possibility"?†
††††††††††† Because Space †itself is not something measurable.† Space† itself cannot be an object.† All objects that could exist, all somethings that are accessible to us must, so to speak, be "within Space".† Space itself, on the other hand, is never something.† It always remains so to speak "invisible."
††††††††††† When we see a room with a wall, then we do not "see" Space , but rathers pecific objects with specific forms of expression.† That means, for example, that the walls stand at right angles to one another, that a chair is there, etc..† Space† itself is only the possibility that these objects can even exist for us, and as a result, that they can be described by us at all.
††††††††††† It is important to understand that the description of the objects (= whose composition is made form the signals of the sense organs, and whose form is created from diverse combinations of diverse assimilations ) is only possible based on the original principle† (= original assimilation ) of Space , but which however does not contribute in any way to specific descriptions of the objects.† Several other assimilations† are responsible for this.†
††††††††††† In other words, the fact that the walls stand at right angles to one another, that the chair is red, etc. is only possible because--in addition to the original-principle† of Space--further assimilations †are at work in combination with the signals of the sense organs (these further assimilations† are not like Space --only assimilations †that make other things possible--but rather are assimilations †that effectively arrange (i.e. those that make very specialized statements) ).
††††††††††† One cannot purely derive anything from the original-principle† of Space† (because Space† only "makes possible"); neither a color, nor a right angle, nor anything else.
††††††††††† We see here how Space† on its own does not contribute at all to the actual "description," i.e. to the "shaping" (which form will be taken) of objects.† Rather, Space †only provides the possibility of the objectsę existence in the first place (namely, the objects next to us).
††††††††††† This also means that no impression (real-experience ) is possible without Space .† For without the possibility of being side-by-side, nothing else could possibly exist beside our Bewusstsein .
††††††††††† †It has to be made clear that Space--which actually on its own "is nothing," but which "makes everything possible in the first place"--is nothing material.†
††††††††††† That is, that even if one were to regard his Bewusstsein† only as something "spiritual" and not as "physical" (here, we will only make the assumption, but not claim,† that this is the case), then nothing could be beside him; i.e. next to his Bewusstsein ; i.e. the Bewusstsein† and something else--even if it were purely spiritual (e.g. another Bewusstsein)--without Space.†
††††††††††† For Space is not something physical, but rather only that which makes side-by-side possible--it is irrelevant how these somethings, which are side-by-side (in other words, are not one and the same) are constructed.
††††††††††† Even the existence of the signals of the sense organs would not be conceivable without the Space† beside our Bewusstsein.† It is also not imaginable that those assimilations , which first make the signals into something that appears to us as this object, is possible without Space .† This, because it is first the combination of precise assimilations† (their precise order) that creates a very specific object (e.g. a car, exactly in that way as we take it in).†
††††††††††† But because these assimilations† are classifications (Actually, Space as an assimilation †which enables, is not a classification--though the majority of assimilations must be classifications, for otherwise, no determinations could have been made, i.e. no possibility of differentiation would exist)† their forms are at least† (i.e.† are, as we perceive them as "real")† (probably also their pure "existence"--but we cannot say that at the present moment.† For Space, too, is indescribable in its pure "existence," but first only shows its possibilities through its effects† (something, which Space† has in common with the CPU-general ).† Nevertheless, the fact that assimilations† create various forms in "reality" is enough for our assessment that assimilations †could not be possible without Space† (those assimilations† which classify) ) of different natures (= the assimilations† are not exactly one and the same without any differentiation).† And as a fact, at the same "time," i.e. "simulataneously."† If Space† exists, only then can more than one form of a single (classifying) assimilation† exist.
††††††††††† From that which we just explained (that not more than a single assimilation †would be possible without† Space ), it also follows that there couldnęt be any existence of recall- and extra-experiences† without the principle of Space .†
††††††††††† This, for we need assimilations† for the construction of every recall- and extra-experience . Every assimilation† (with the only possible exception being the original-assimilation ; but we also know too little about this to be able to determine anything at this time) however, is based on other assimilations .
††††††††††† In this way, every assimilation †is created from several other classifying assimilations (a car, for example, is constructed from the classifications which make up "tires," "smell," "drive," etc.† A tire is constructed from the classifications which stand for "round," "rubber," etc.).
††††††††††† Without Space , however, nothing more than a single classification would be posible.
††††††††††† A single classification without another, though, is not comparable to anything (since there is nothing else).† The practical worth of a classification, however, is that, which it conveys very specifically.† To convey something, however, only occurs where something comparable (i.e. more than "a single X")† exists, i.e. where something is distinguishable.† Since this is not given from an individual classification, such a classification conveys nothing.† It is not in any way "useful," just the opposite, it is"unusable."
††††††††††† But not even a single classification could "possess" our Bewusstsein† without Space .† For it itself (= the Bewusstsein ) and a classification are actually two different somethings .
††††††††††† This means that without Space , not even a single, non-coveying (and in this way, therefore, "worthless") classification could be next to oneęs Bewusstsein .
††††††††††† Nevermind then, the recall- and extra-experiences .
††††††††††† That means that the very fact that one can remember something proves alone that Space †is necessary.
††††††††††† All that which we have just covered is just as applicable for all thought combinations.† Every idea is a specific picture (one that is distinguishable from others).† Differences are only possible, though, when variety exist.† Variety is only "variety," however, when more than one and the same exists.† And Space †is necessary for the existence of more than one and the same.
††††††††††† The same is true of dreams, thoughts--everything, in fact.
††††††††††† Not even feelings are conceivable without Space .† This is because feelings, at the moment in which they occur (when they are perceived), are triggered through the effect of the now-CPU ; which--more often unconsciously than not--compares former impressions with one another.†
††††††††††† This effect of the now-CPU --in which it makes the most diverse of assessments (= the most diverse of memories (although even a single one would be enough) )† is only possible though, because the original-principle† of Space †is always there.
††††††††††† In this way, nothing that we link with Bewusstsein (as its forms of expression (i.e. as we "experience" it. (namely, in having experiences) ) ) would be possible today without Space .
††††††††††† Essential in understanding the concept of Space (concept because the term Space (which we have assigned) is also only a classification.† A classification of something we do not "see," which we cannot "notice"; but of whose "existence" we are informed through its effects (namely, that there is something more than an "indistinguishable unit"), however.† We cannot "see" it because it is only that which makes possible; i.e. enabling.) is that it doesnęt only make possible, for example, that a chair is next to a chair, but also makes it possible that a thought in us exists.
† ††††††††† And this is the case because both a thought as well as a chair first appear to us in their definitive forms given through the combination of assimilations .† One† (thought) with or without the signals of the sense organs (we will have to uncover this in the course of our investigations);† the other (chair) with the signals of our sense organs.
††††††††††† Space† is by far not only limited to "outside manifestations" (chair), but rather is also responsible for all which takes place in our inner (e.g. thoughts).
††††††††††† In other words, through all of our experiences (i.e. all that we do, sense, are, etc.) the original-principle† of space† is present.†
††††††††††† At the same time, due to its characteristic composition, it does not participate in defining diverse de≠terminations (= the combination of diverse assimilations which together compose a special statement).† Alt≠hough it makes all of this possible in the first place. †Space† is, therefore, a very special original-principle.† One which "enables" and does not "classify."
††††††††††† The fact that we have recall- and extra-experiences is additional proof that Space is an original-assimilation †within us;† that is that it had belonged to the "original elements" of our Bewusstsein† from the beginning (i.e. since our Bewusstsein† is that, as we are about to understand) onwards.† For this is the only way possible to develop a thought.† To perceive a feeling.
††††††††††† But not only this proves that Space† is within us (i.e. a part of our Bewusstsein †(we are not dealing with what value the Bewusstsein† assigns "this part" in comparison to other parts) ).
††††††††††† Let us keep in mind that since Chapter IX we know that assimilations are put together inside of us;† there must, therefore, also be Space† in us (= an element of our Bewusstsein ).
††††††††††† If one were then to challenge that Space† is in us, and believes that only the classifying assimilations† are within us and not the enabling ones (Space ), what then?
††††††††††† If Space† would be independent of us, it would still remain undisputed that the CPU-general† would be "a part," "an element" of our Bewusstsein ("in us"). It is the CPU-general which is responsible for all experiences (i.e. also for all descriptions;† actually, for all that is possible).† In that it put assimilations †together (classifying assimilations† as well as enabling assimilations (to this belongs Space ) ).
††††††††††† If Space† were something that existed on its own, then the CPU-general †would not have "possessed" Space †"before" the first experience of oneęs Bewusstsein.† The CPU-general† would have to have "gotten a grip" on Space †with the first experience.
††††††††††† The CPU-general† can only "get a grip" on something that it knows of in the first place.† For if absolutely nothing of the something is within awareness †(i.e. awareness† "knows" of nothing), then this something† does not exist at all for awareness† (in this case, it would be the independently existing Space ).† The CPU †would, therefore, first need the "knowledge" that there is Space, which is independent from its awareness in order to be able to link Space with its classifying assimilations .
††††††††††† If the CPU† needs knowledge of an existing Space which is independent from its awareness , then it has to (and respectively awareness ) already have possession of an assimilation (or assimilations ) which makes this Space existent for awareness† in the first place (for without assimilations , oneęs awareness† cannot know of anything; i.e. nothing exists for oneęs awareness ).
††††††††††† The CPU ęs own existence (respectively, the existence of oneęs awareness ) and an assimilation (let it be an original-assimilation)--which is necessary to make the "existing space† independent of† awareness " at all existent for awareness --are actually two different somethings .† Therefore, to be able to exist at all, these two somethings need Space.
††††††††††† This means, in order to have the chance at all to possess an existing Space, independent from us, in connection with our classifying assimilations† (whereby it is incomprehensible how the CPU† should be able to do such a thing), we must have possession of space† as an element of our awareness (actually, as the enabling original-assimilation† of our Bewusstsein ).
††††††††††† This means that if Space† existed "outside of us" as something independent from us, then we would need the Space† "within us" in order to even be able to know of its existence.
††††††††††† This all means that Space† must be "within us."† It must be an element of our Bewusstsein.† The very fact that we can even put assimilations †together proves this!
††††††††††† The must that Space† is in us can be explained clearly with the T.V..†
††††††††††† For when we "create" the most diverse of objects (the flag, the house beihnd, another house, etc.) from the most diversified of dots (returning to the camera pan of the village on T.V.), we can only do this because we apply the original-principle of Space† (as the possibility of being side-by-side) in every determination (all impressions).†
††††††††††† If this principle were not in us, we would not even be able to derive this principle of Space †from the given dots (these are once again our artificial "pre-reality" ).† We wouldnęt be able to make a distinction between the individual dots and couldnęt be put them into the most diverse of groupings (these dots are a house, these dots another house, etc.).†
††††††††††† It is first and foremost that Space exists within us that we are able to see the flag in front of the house, that the second house is in the background, etc..
††††††††††† (It should always be taken into acount here that in "reality" we, of course, would never be able to see different dots without Space ;† but here, we consider the already "given" dots as if they were "pre-reality."† We are able to do this because we see the same assimilations †in operation as those we would face in the "real pre-reality.").
††††††††††† The specific differentiations, however, of what is "behind," "to the right of," or "in front of" the flag are determinations which are only possible because the principle of Space operates within us, but also because these determinations must exist from further (namely, classifying) assimilations.† For concepts such as "behind," "to the right of," etc. are not pure derivatives of the concept of Space .
††††††††††† Seeing a house "behind" the flag shows that we must also have the original concept of Space† within us.† For nothing three-dimensional can be derived purely from the dots alone.
††††††††††††††††††††††† (At the same time, "three-dimensional" or "two-dimensional" is all the same to Space †since the difference first results from Space† and further (classifying) principles.† For Space †as the possibility of side-by-side (= the ability to simultaneously exist of more than just an undifferentiated unit) does not differentiate between "where" or "how"† the "side-by-side" is defined.† This determination is first made from the classifying assimilations† that work in combination with Space.)
††††††††††† If on T.V. one sees, for example, the house behind the flag, Space is not solely responsible, but rather a determining factor.† Since Space† cannot be derived from the dots, one can see that Space† must be within us, and nowhere else.
††††††††††† The picture on T.V. shows, therefore, that the original-assimilation †of Space† is within us, and only there.
††††††††††† We can, therefore, summarize:† Space† is a fundamental element of our Bewusstsein.† It is one of the original-assimilations† which must have been present since oneęs first experience, and with which further connected-assimilations† can be constructed.† Space† by itself does not only not "exist on its own," neither is it a forming (= classifying) element (most of the other assimilations† have forming character), but rather an element enabling the form.
††††††††††† Another original-assimilation is easily identified.† That of Time .
††††††††††† Here, too, we must distinguish between the concept of "Time" as it is used in everyday use, and that concept as it "really" is within our examination.
††††††††††† In everyday language, "Time" †is a rigidly fixed measurement.† It is measurable and stands on its own, independent of whether humans or another living thing are present.
††††††††††† What is Time† "really" based on our examinations, though?
††††††††††† Time† itself is, just as little as Space †is, a "comprehensible object."
††††††††††† We cannot notice it by itself; only through the existence of several experiences are we able to recognize Time† indirectly. In having other new experiences, we know that Time† passes.†† In other words,† originally Time† is nothing more than the mere possibility of all further experiences. Without Time †not even the slightest change could occur.† And every change is nothing more than an experience, no matter if real-, recall-, or extra-experiences. Everything is change: each new thought, each new emotion, each new memory.† And this needs Time .† In the same way, every further impression is only possible through Time .
††††††††††† The definition of the concept of Time , as we understand it from this point on, runs: "The possibility of every change."
††††††††††† "Possibility," just as with Space, because Time itself is nothing "conceivable."† Nevertheless, every change is only possible through Time, even the smallest variance in our awareness† (even if something suddenly becomes conscious instead of unconscious (when one doesnęt totally consciously †notice it at all at the time); or when another matter becomes totally conscious ; or when one looks at an object differently in even the slightest way, and this for only a fraction of a second.† In other words, even when the smallest, invisible (yet still a change in the contents of awareness ) activities of awareness† are included in this.
††††††††††† We see immediately that in addition to Space, we are dealing with another enabling assimilation †here.†
††††††††††† An assimilation , which says nothing about the somethings† (which we can only recognize through Time ) regarding their contents nor their technical manner (i.e. absolutely nothing about the somethings †themselves), and only contributes to making it possible (similar to Space ) to have experiences beyond the very first one, and moreover, which makes it possible that our awareness "lives," i.e. is "turned on."
††††††††††† Even when we experience a "single" impression, this usually yields a multiple number of awareness† activities.† Let us take, for example, an empty and white room with a chair as the only piece of furniture.† In a room where "nothing" is done and nothing "happens."†
††††††††††† If we were to consider this room, continual changes (even the smallest of changes) would occur with our impression:† Once, we concentrate on the chair, another moment on the wall.† Once, we are totally conscious† of everything in the room; later, a thought comes; later, our awareness† alternates totally consciously† between the wall, and a split second later, the chair;† then, the heart beat can be heard (= the heart beat has become totally conscious ); etc..†
††††††††††† In this way, Time †effects a "single" impression.† Simply because awareness †doesnęt stop doing all of its activities.† The activities wouldnęt even be imaginable without Time .
††††††††††† Letęs consider the following sketch:
††††††††††† If one observes it for a while, then he--with a check on oneself--will realize that his awareness† is in continual "motion."† Eventhough this impression itself contains little "matter," the groupings within the contents of awareness †(actually, experiences) are constantly changing.†
††††††††††† First, one may observe this geometrical figure from one vantage point, then form another one, then he may concentrate on specific "lines" (depending on whether one views them at this time as perfectly "straight" or as a lateral edge of the object), and then later on others; until finally, scarcely a more noticible or clearer thought will arise.† Usually, if one sticks to the sketch long enough, several things will run through his head (unless one tries to practice concentrating on only one individual thing (a single way to look at it); but even then, it is hardly possible to maintain a single unalterable thought the entire time); i.e. awareness will always continue to function.
††††††††††† These changes of awareness, however, are first made possible through the effect of the CPU-gene≠ral.† And the CPU-general †can only operate "in Time ."† Without Time †(i.e. "without the possibility of change"), the CPU-general wouldnęt have any outcomes.
††††††††††††††††††††††† (In other words, certainly there wouldnęt be any changing experiences (a decision, for example, is just as a particular changing feeling (even if the similar feeling was already there before), a new further extra-experience .)† ).† But because we do not yet know the relationship between the CPU-general †and Time , we do not yet know if the CPU-general† can also "function" in the same way without Time .† But even if it were able to function without Time , this would have little effect since we couldnęt then have new experiences.† For these new experiences are exclusively possible "in Time.")
††††††††††††††††††††††† (If we now point out that:† Eventhough not even one experience is† possible without Space , and a further (second) experience is not possible without Time , but nevertheless, nothing can be said concerning the possibility of the CPU-general ęs outcome without Time †(but, too, without Space ) (even though--whether or not the CPU-general †can function or not without† Space and Time--we couldnęt have any experiences without Space and Time† anyway), then it would be because of this:†
††††††††††† We experience the CPU-general only indirectly, i.e. through experiences which we first experience through its effects.†
††††††††††† In other words, we know of its consequences, but know nothing specific of it.† And because of this, we cannot assume this a premise (we first have to examine this) that the CPU-general itself cannot work without Space †and Time† (i.e. that it needs Space† and Time† to function it is just as plausible as if this were not the case.† In either case, however, without Space †and Time ††we couldnęt have any experiences (that is, awareness would have "nothing" in its contents; i.e. as though it itself were "nothing."† In a practical way, this would mean:† Awareness† itself would not exist.)† ).† ).
††††††††††† If we "measure"† "Time"† in its everyday use, this is an impression we get (for otherwise, we wouldnęt know anything of the "measurement").†
††††††††††† This impression itself is not a derivative of the original-principle† of Time† alone.† For this principle is only "enabling" and not "classifying" like other assimilations.† Just as the "measurement" of "Space" †does not derive solely from the original-principle† of Space , so too, the measurement of "Time"† does not solely derive from the† original-principle† of Time.†
††††††††††† Any "measurement," "determination," or "establishment"--as far as these have nothing to do with a condition of oneęs awareness, which is without any change--is only possible based on the assumption that the original-principle of Time effects everything (namely, only possible "in time"). But these determinations themselves need further assimilations (precisely, the "classifying" ones which then, with Time †and the signals of the senses (when we watch the clock) are combined through the CPU).
††††††††††† This is also where many of our misunderstandings of Time †could be (and still are today) found.† When one "measures `Timeę" (e.g. through a clock), he normally does not make the distinction that this "measurement" is only made possible through Time† in the first place (because this "measurement of `Timeę" goes beyond a "timeless" state of awareness† without any sort of activity; simply because in order to make a comparison of two clock-times (which one needs in order to be able to determine the change in the clock-time), he needs the "activity" of his awareness† at least twice (of course, in practice there are many more) ), but in order for this ďmeasurement of Timeď to become reality, it is first necessary that the original-assimilation Time was combined with other classifying-assimilations .
††††††††††† For, from Time †alone, as the "possibility of every change," it is not possible to derive a fixed "measurement" from the "normal time."† (Why would anyone want to derive something "concrete" from a "matter," which is "enabling", but "on its own" does not in the least bit "comprehensibly" exist?† This is impossible.)† The "measurement of Time " is first made possible in connection with Time †and the classifying-assimilations .
††††††††††† The CPU-general determines the recall- and extra-experiences (because of its access to former experiences; and every form of of thought combination (decisions are also a part of this)† ), as well as the real-experiences †(by combining the signals of the sense organs and the assimilations† together), and therefore needs Time --at the very latest, at the moment of a second experience of the Bewusstsein† (= as we describe Bewusstsein †here, i.e. what we will become more clearer as we progress).
††††††††††† But in this way, Time† cannot exist independently from us.† For if Time were something independent †††††††††††† (which is already a contradiciton within itself; since Time †is first existent for us with the exchanging of the experiences of our awareness ; that is, without awareness , there wouldnęt be any exchanging of the experiences, and therefore, too, no Time† could exist for our awareness† (and in this way at all, from my point of view). )from our awareness , (and therefore Time would not, from the very start of all experiences, belong to my Bewusstsein)† how could the CPU-general† function in using the Time--which is afterall, not with the CPU-general† in the first place?
††††††††††† Similarly, when we assume that the CPU-general† can operate without Time† itself, awareness --starting with the second impression--nevertheless cannot .†
††††††††††† That is, the CPU-general , in order for the second experience (i.e. that experience which is added to the first experince of the Bewusstsein† ) to occur, had to procure Time †for itself (that means, for the awareness ).†
††††††††††† If it procures Time† (as a something† independent from our awareness† (which, just as in the case of Space , it is incomprehensible, how the CPU-general† would want to "notice" and "register" such a purely enabling assimilation ) ) in order to be able to have a further (= second) experience--this procurement of this something (= Time ); if the process of procurement would be run in such a way, that our awareness† gets "knowledge" (conscious or unconscious); i.e. that through this procurement, Time †develops; †is already a change.†
††††††††††† In other words,† the CPU-general† (the awareness ) would already need Time† (as an element of itself, that means of awareness ) in order to be able to carry out the "procurement" in such a way, that it becomes conscious or unconscious to us.
††††††††††† For even when the CPU-general† could be effective without Time , awareness† could never experience its effects without Time †(for awareness would need Time †for this).† And because the awareness† couldnęt have any further experiences without Time† (i.e. without having Time "in awareness "), awareness† couldnęt "experience" anything of the "captured time" without Time ; so that consequently, it would lead to "no Time " (i.e. have no access to Time ) and, too, to no further experiences.
††††††††††† For Time† expresses nothing less and nothing more than the possibility of change; i.e. the possibility of awarenessę activity (as we already know, the activity of awareness† causes every change).† If awareness could make Time conscious or unconscious "without" Time (i.e. to get "captured time" through the CPU-general, and then "newly register" this) (although, we do not know how such an happening could function), then awareness would do exactly that, which Time determines: namely, to be active, and through its effects, to change the somethings† with whom it occupies itself with.
††††††††††† If awareness† could be active (i.e. to bring about concrete outcomes (what awareness †could unquestionably do if it could simply "capture" Time ) ), then it already has Time† within itself.† It would, therefore, be unneccesary for it to then capture Time .
††††††††††† Awareness †would need Time† after the first impression, therefore, in order to deal at all with something else (in this case, to "procure" a Time †which does not belong to it).†
††††††††††† In other words, awareness must have possessed its own (= not foreign to it) Time, at the very latest with the second impression.
††††††††††† One could object, with right, here: How should Time not be "measurable"?† There are clocks around the entire world which are operating, and even which show the same time.† How does it work then, when everyone possesses his own purely subjective original assimilation† of Time ?
††††††††††† Time, as we understand it, is not even subjective, but rather simply enabling. †Time , though, belongs to the Bewusstsein† from the very beginning.† The "measurement of `Time ę"† is naturally possible.† Eventhough one needs further classifying assimilations† for this.
††††††††††† Fine, it can be argued, if every single assimilation† can be combined in this way--how then do we have objects (e.g. clocks) which all (more or less) show the same identical time?† When everyone can supposedly establish his own measurement of time?
††††††††††† This is explained clearly in Chapter IX:† Our CPU† first produces "measurements," "hours," etc. through the combinations of the assimilation of Time† along with still other assimilations.† This special grouping of specific assimilations †enables the "measurement of time " in the first place.
††††††††††† If one wants an "identical measurement of time" for all, then everyone must have the same arrangement of the diverse "clasifying assimilations"!† This, however, is the job of the CPU-general.† That is, the "exact time measurement" is a combination of Time† (as we define it) and other (clasifying) assimilations; whereby the CPU-generals of all people use the same combinations (namely, the "construction of the clock-time impression") of assimilations.
††††††††††† (As we pointed out in Chapter IX, we can conclude--based on the experience, that over a large area of the world there is an agreement concerning peopleęs impressions; and based on the results of our previous research--that more or less people must have access to the same classifying assimilations† (this shall still be proven, but for the time being, based on our experience, we have at least good reason to assume this).
††††††††††† The ďidentical measurment of timeď is therefore, as by nearly everything concerning "reality" (as has already been shown in Chapter IX), because of an agreement of the CPU-generals †of all people.† An agreement of the CPU concerning the combination of assimilations† in order to process an impression.†
††††††††††† Because it was possible to reach an agreement on all (nearly all) impresions, and an agreement on the succession of impressions was reached as well (first, the car is 200 meters away from us, then 100, etc.) so, must just as much of an agreement on the establishment of a "measurement" be obtained.† It doesnęt matter if these "measurements" are "created" with the combination of classifying assimilations†† and Space† or Time† (or both).†
††††††††††† With Space, specific classifying assimilations , with the help of the CPU , would make "meters," "kilometers," length," "width," etc.; and with Time , special classifying assimilations† would make "Past," "future," "second," "hour," etc.
††††††††††† We can, therefore, say:† Time† is a fundamental element of our Bewusstsein .† It is an original-assimilation , which had to have belonged to the Bewusstsein †since its very first impression.† Time †is the "possibility of change."† That is, not a classifying assimilation , but rather an assimilation which enables all the activities of our awareness.†††††††
††††††††††† Let us summarize what we have learned concerning the "reaching of impressions."
††††††††††† There are somethings† (they are indefinable and we are unable to conclude anything concerning them as long as we havenęt "experienced" from them (= have received no impression).† It is only possible to assign a value to these "yet indefined future impressions") from which we are "affected" (for the present time, we will define this as the ability that allows us to get the "signals of our sense organs") which we combine (as signals) with classifying† and enabling assimilations† (Space †and Time ) into an impression.
††††††††††† Further, we must "decide" during these processes.
††††††††††† First, to we have to decide whether to register the signals† or not (afterall, who is to say that we have to take them in at all?).† And then we have to decide, once again, while the CPU orders the signals into impressions. We have to decide which contents the impressions will become (because each time the CPU† could also order the signals based on completely different assimilations than those it does at the time).
††††††††††† It is clear that we need classifying assimilations:
††††††††††† In order to even have impressions we need Space †and Time .† Also the signals of the sense organs in order to know that a something† is.† But just as Space †and† Time† are only enabling and not classifying, so too, are the signals of the sense organs not classifying.†† For the signals are first† "prepared to become an impression" when they are ordered; when it is "determined" what is linked with something else.†
††††††††††† For each determination--such as what the border between a "house" and a "flag" is, for example, or what is a "house," what is a "flag," etc.--is not comprised within the signals of the sense organs.† If it were, we could not have obtained a T.V. picture, among other things, since the points of light on the screen could not† transmit the "same" signals as those the "real" object† projects; provided that the signals themselves would already have their order.†† For the points of light are "procured" much differently.
††††††††††† From the fact that we can have memories and† thought combinations, we can further see that these determinations must be within us.† For how else could we--without the signals--develop new ideas?† This would be imposible without the ability of determination.† (We have dealt with these already in Chapter IX).
††††††††††† Every classifying assimlation ††in connection with Space† is a determination.
††††††††††† The objects will take "form" depending on what the message of the determination is (the objects of which we first receive as somethings† (through the signals of the sense impressions), and which are described as classifyed somethings as soon as they are "determined").†
††††††††††† The objectęs "form," however, is always dependent on the respective combination of a particular determination.†
††††††††††† Because the CPU† could always make other special determinations, every determination is a decision.† We could therefore say:† Every object that we register (which we see as it appears to us) is the product of a decision.
††††††††††† Letęs look at an example to show that determinations do not only decide what we ascribe to an object, but in addition also lay down its precise manifestations (i.e. the exact appearance).
††††††††††† Let use the example of a car.†
††††††††††† Everyone a part of our examination knows exactly what the concept (= determination) of "car" stands for.† All would immediately connect several sub-concepts (= always those which together "construct" the concept now in concern) which include:† A car has tires; paint; a steering wheel; a windshield; at least one wing mirror; the rear wheels have the same spacing between them as the front wheels; the wheels are closer to the street than the top of the car (because all of this "spacing" is not even possible, as we have said, without the enabling assimilation †(Space ), but rather additionally needs the classifying assimilation .† And it is first the CPU ęs combination of both types of assimilations that results in a determination.); etc..†
††††††††††† In other words, a multitude of determinations construct the chief-determination †(= in relation to those "constructing" sub-determinations. On the other hand, the chief-determination †of a "car" is itself, for example, only a sub-determination of the determination of "traffic.") of† "Car" (there are also purely subjective determinations which are individually connected with "car" suh as:† Driving to Mexico, going to a drive-through, etc.).† The sum of all of these "characteristics" (i.e. determinations) results in a determination described as "car."
††††††††††† We can also examine a sub-determination †of the determination "car."† Letęs take the example of a wheel.† Among other things, we connect the following characteristics:† Round, flexible, compressed air, appx. 30 cm. in diameter, etc..
††††††††††† We can see in all of these determinations (= combinatios of diverse classifying assimilations ††and Space ) that each is made from still further sub-determinations .† We have the possibility with the CPU †to connect the simplest of determinations into more complex ones.† And these more complex determinations into still more complex ones, etc..†
††††††††††† This also means that we need nothing more than determinations to define our world precisely.†
††††††††††† Because the signals of the sense organs--as we have already shown--cannot carry any determinations with them; i.e. cannot say anything concerning the future object as defined by a determination; i.e. cannot even make any sort of statement--the sum of all of these clasifications and Space† (= determinations); which we describe as "wheel";† must be responsible not only for the meaning of the concept "wheel" but also for the appearance (as it appears to us)!
††††††††††† For signals do not contain any determinations. They do not say anything concerning how long, wide, high, of what material, etc. something is.† In other words, they alone do not at all express a determination.
††††††††††† And because on one hand, everything distinguishable (i.e. considered practically actually all of "reality" as we experience it every day) is only distiguishable based on the determinations.† That means that nothing can be distinguished other than† determinations themselves.†
††††††††††† On the other hand, we see so much distinguishable in reality--which leads to the fact that everything "visibly distinguishable" is only distiguishable "visibly" one and alone through determinations.
††††††††††† If we see a wheel in reality, then we can do so because our CPU †has had to make an agreement with other people.
††††††††††† An agreement so that all CPU s can use the identical determination with the arrangement of "wheel." (We know that for all people Space† is valid as an enabling assimilation, and we have good reason to believe that even the determining original-assimilations --which construct all other assimilations--are the same for all people (for we have proven that only the CPU ††arranges all experiences, and that reality can, therefore, only take place via an agreement; it is also a necessary conclusion that all people at least have similar classifying assimilations †(otherwise no reality would exist as we know it).)† .)
††††††††††† The CPU†† in order that we can come to the impression of† this "wheel.ď
††††††††††† In other words, we could say:† What we see in reality is nothing more than the condensation of the classifyng assimilations †with the enabling assimilations .† (Only with Space in an--absolutely unchanged--impression.† With Space† and Time† as soon as even a slight change in the condition† in oneęs awareness †occurs.† For example, when the wheel rolls, etc..)
††††††††††† What is the result of this?
††††††††††† Due to the fact that differentiation can only occur with assimilations, it follows that our thoughts, dreams, and memories are fundamentally just as "equal" as "real" impressions (that means, all experiences are equal).† "Equal" meaning that all forms of experiences are precisely decided upon by the determinations and the effects of the CPU .
††††††††††† There is actually no principle difference between recall-† and extra-experiences† on one hand and the real-experiences† on the other.
††††††††††† The difference lies only in that once (in the case of† recall-† and extra-experiences) only oneęs CPU† "creates" particular determinations, and that another time oneęs CPU† "creates" specific determinations in agreement with the CPU† of other Bewusstseins†† (See appendix).
††††††††††† This principle can be applied to everything from which we can have experiences as a Bewusstsein †(in the meaning as we are getting to know more about it through this investigation).† The same is true for all impressions.†† In order to be able to "recognize" something, in order to even know about the existence of somethings† at all, we need classifying assimilations.
††††††††††† Let us observe this from another perspective.† What would occur if we were not to "classify" (= have classifying assimilations) anything at all?
††††††††††† If we were to do without the determinations (i.e. the combination of enabling† and classifying assimilations) in the impression of a something †that we want to turn into an object (actually, to change into a classifyed something ; i.e. want to "define")--if we were to be content with only its pure existence--then we could not differentiate anymore between this something† from other somethings.†
††††††††††† Because we simply would not come to any determination. †(Because we would also not make use of the determinations of how "high," "wide," "colorful," "round," etc. (all of these are determinations).)† And nevertheless, the fact alone that something† is would also be a determination.† If we were to do without this as well, then we couldnęt register anything anymore.
††††††††††† In other words, we need "determinations" (= classifications and Space ) for all experiences of our awareness .† It is the determinations, with their combination from the CPU , which first give the awareness† its "contents."
††††††††††† The CPU-general† itself is an ability of awareness †and makes it possible through its effects (the combination of determinations among other things) for us to be able to have experiences (to have contents in our avarness) in the first place; this ability on its own, however, is clearly not a content of our awareness .
††††††††††† This means, however, that we have had determinations since our very first impression.† As shown earlier, all of these determinations have to belong to our Bewusstsein , for otherwise, the experiences, as we have them, would not be possible.†
††††††††††† At the same time, we know that we continuously find determinations that are composed time and time again from other determinations (e.g. a car from a tire; a tire from round; round from a circle; a circle from Space, and whatever other (which we do not explore here) specific classifications).
††††††††††† We have determinations that, through the CPU ęs effects, are put together from other determinations to form a unit.
††††††††††† Because we could not have received the determinations through an "outside" experience (for how could one get that something through an experience which first makes the experience possible?), the determinations must always have been with our Bewusstsein .† By analysing the existing determinations (which are composed of several other determinations), we should be able to discover the very origins of determinations.
††††††††††† Why the "very origins of determinations"?
††††††††††† Because the CPU †can compile new determinations from formerly existing determinations (e.g. a tire, mirror, and countless others (all of which also came into being from countless other determinations) "make" a car).
††††††††††† This merge of individual determinations to more and more complex groups can be extended indefinitely.† But in order to have begun at some point, there must--from the very first impression--have been a minimal measurement of original-determinations, from which all other determinations (through a combination of the same through the CPU ) have been built.
††††††††††† Original-determinations† (classifying assimilations† and Space ) must, therefore, exist, which influence (i.e. assemble) all other determinations.
††††††††††††††††††††††† (It is necessary to point out here, that we use the concept of "assimilation" in two ways.
††††††††††††††††††††††† In one way, "assimilation" will mean the composition of classifying assimilations †with enabling assimilations .
††††††††††††††††††††††† At the same time, "classifying assimilations"† as† "enabling assimilations" stand for somethings †which first in combination with eachother become effective assimilations.
††††††††††††††††††††††† This means, for example, that the concept "original-assimilation" stands for the union between "classifying original-determinations †"† and† "enabling original-assimilation."
††††††††††††††††††††††† ("Enabling original-assimilation " because with every original-assimilation , only Space †(and not Time ) is involved.
††††††††††††††††††††††† Because, whenever Time† appears, this means that this assimilation †can be broken into sub-assimilations .
††††††††††† The quality of the original-assimilations† is to be those assimilations† which cannot be broken down any further; without one arriving at a single classifying† and a single enabling original-assimilation.† In other words, to come to "parts" of an original-assimilation †which, seen on their own, without being connected to one another, do not declare anything.
††††††††††† Because a classifying original-assimilation cannot arrive at a statement without a connection to Space , since awareness †wouldnęt even be able to "notice" it, it doesnęt exist for awareness †(and in this way, not "at all").
††††††††††† This is why Space† is necessary for every original-assimilation.† First, through this configuration (= Space and a classifying original-determination) does awareness arrive at the "smallest" of somethings; at the "smallest" possible part of its contents.
††††††††††† If Time †were also there with such an assimilation; this would mean that this assimilation† can be broken down into sub-assimilations† (at least per sub-assimilation into Space and at least one classifying original-assimilation )--and in this way, cannot be an original-assimilation.
††††††††††††††††††††††† That means, every original-assimilation ,† on its own, i.e. not viewed in context with other assimilations , is without Time .)† ).
††††††††††† The possibility would exist to examine all (or at least several) determinations which serve us in order to discover the original-assimilations .† For they must exist.† This route is, however, a painstaking and time-consuming one.† In addition to this, one can never be sure that some determinatins to examine would be forgoten, which would lead to till-then unknown original-determinations.† We will--a bit later--endeavor to see if there isnęt another better possibility in acquiring the original-assimilations.
††††††††††† Until then, we can say that everything we can have as an experience can only acquire its special significance through the special combination of the classifying asimilations† with Space† (and Time ).
††††††††††††††††††††††† (With "experience" here we donęt only mean exclusively the union of Space and classifying assimilations, but rather "experience" can also represent the union of classifying assimilations† with Space †and Time.
††††††††††††††††††††††† A determination can make an entire experience as well as a tiny neglected part of an experience.)
††††††††††† Every determination gets its entire "individual" significance only through other determinations.† First, through those sub-determinations† which comprise it; and, too, through its meaning for other determinations.
††††††††††† It can also be said, that every determinationonly gets its special meaning only through the comparison with other determinations.
††††††††††† In combining the most diverse of determinations into a single determination (an "object," i.e. a classifyed something ), the CPU-general ††allows that this determination (object) can be differentiated from other objects (which consists of other sub-determinations ).†
††††††††††† This applies to all determinations, with the exception of original-determinations ; and applies, therefore, to everything.
††††††††††† The significance of every existing determination results first from the most differentiated arrangements with the most diverse of sub-determinations .† And the significance of these sub-determinations originate again from their further sub-determinations .† And so on, whereby all determinations receive their "final" signifiance through the relationship to us.† For without this relationship (if the determinations could stand on their own without a relationship to us (which they cannot) ) they would hold no meaning for us (i.e. our awareness; and from this vantage point, we are dealing with everything).† And so, too, they would be meaningless themselves.
††††††††††† This was explained through the example of the car.† We will now show a determination which might not at first seem to fit to this principle; but, of course (as it is a determination afterall), it does belong to the principle we just explained.
††††††††††† Letęs look at the color "green."†
††††††††††† On its own, as is the case for everything we register, it is a determination.† A determination which obtains its very special meaning through the comparison with other determinations. The color "green" (i.e. that which we "really" see as "green") is nothing other than unconscious knowledge of the differentiation of its determination (namely, from classifying assimilations† and† Space ) from other determinations.†
††††††††††† The coloręs special significance is caused in reality by further determinations which are combined with it.
††††††††††† For example, a green, round-shaped body in the fruit section of a grocery store is a watermelon.† If this object were yellow, we would know that it isnęt yet ripe.† If† particular ovally-curved forms (we mean bananas here) are green, then we know that this fruit is not ripe.† If, on the other hand, these forms are yellow, then we know they are ripe.
††††††††††† That is, on one hand, "green" (as all determinations, with the exception of the original determinations ) is constructed from sub-determinations† ("green" from, among others, "color," "light," "expression of the superficial nature," etc.).† These sub-determinations† make a pure difference from other determinations (e.g. "yellow") first possible without saying more than "green" is "not yellow."†
††††††††††† On the other hand, "green" first takes on itęs special significance with itęs respective application in reality.† Not considered on its own, but in connection with further determinations.† And all of these are, once again, seen within the context of oneself.
††††††††††† That is, on one hand, the CPU† "creates"† "objects" ("units") through combinations of the assimilations.† It doesnęt only have the ability to combine, but also is able to integrate these different assimilations into a "unit"† and to give these "units" "duration" (that is, they are subsequently found as their own determinations).† (Letęs think of the picture from T.V..† We do not know from the signals of our sense organs what the flag post is, and what the house).†
††††††††††† On the other hand, it is precisely because of this that the CPU-general† is able to differentiate the "units" by comparing them to one another.† This differentiation is valued neutral.† First, particular applications of these units "in reality" make certain "place values" possible, which we connect with ourselves.† Through this, they become more than just pure differentiation for us--they also hold particular place values for us.
††††††††††† That we are able to, on one hand, "create" objects on our own, and on the other hand, to consider them as though they were independent of us is the ability of our† awareness .† Perhaps we will come to undertand this ability better in th ecourse of our investigations, but for now, we can only make this fact clear.
††††††††††† We also know that we can arrive at ever more complex determinations, and with this also more diversified objects, from the union of "simple" determinations.† That is, to even be able to form the world in such a complex manner as we experience it.† It is not the world, however, which allows us through pure observation to come to these determinations, but rather originally, there must have been original-determinations in order to even have been able to arrive at the "simplest" (considered from our present "real" point of view) of determinations.† And through this, to construct our world.
††††††††††† Let us now turn to a further activity of awareness ††in "coming to an impression."† Namely, "to be affected."
††††††††††† "To be affected" (= "AFF") is the ability to receive.† That is, to even have the possibility in our awareness to experience something.
††††††††††† We experience becoming "affected" by the somethings (which we then convert into classifyed somethings ); from their "signals" which we "perceive" through the sense organs.
††††††††††† Because all determinations (i.e. classification) run through the assimilations (nothing declared, not a "unit"; "more than a something"; etc. i.e. effectively, nothing can be classified without assimilations ), "signals" cannot "express" anything at all.†
††††††††††† For if we were to register them or not, we cannot "experience" through them (i.e. with them) at all.† For "experience"† (i.e. to have impressions) only takes place through determinations (which are assembled by the CPU ).† And for determinations, no signals are needed.
††††††††††† In this way we can, therefore, say that AFF† is a purely chimerical power.†
††††††††††† Is AFF †at all necessary?† Does this power even have to exist?† Not only can it not register signals (if it could do this--i.e. if "signals" even "existed" (as somethings , which exist on their own) then based on the nature of our Bewusstsein, we would never know anything about it); we can additionally not come to an agreement with our fellow human beings (an agreement, which decides that the world is built in that way as we "perceive" it) through the AFF †.† For only the CPU-general †is able to come to an agreement--because we first assemble the assimilations† within us.†
††††††††††† What is then the role of the AFF ?
††††††††††††††††††††††† (To avoid a misunderstanding:
††††††††††††††††††††††† When scientists inform us that diverse objects (a house, an office, etc.) send out "signals," these are not the signals which we are concerned with here.†
††††††††††† For our signals--as we have shown--cannot say anything concerning objects (determinations are solely responsible for this).† Because our signals cannot do this, they do not exist for our awareness †(and, therefore, do not exist at all).
††††††††††††††††††††††† The scientistsę "signals" on the other hand, which are "measurable," are not signals at all according to our definition, but rather objects!!
††††††††††††††††††††††† The simple fact that we can know of the scientistsę "signals" makes them objects.† In other words, these signals are a part of the object itself!† Belongs to this.† We can recognize them as well as this part of the object, which we describe in everyday language as an "object."† (Namely, the part which is "tangible"; which is "easier for us to notice").† Namely, through determinations, which are put together with other Bewusstseins †within the scope of the agreement.)
††††††††††† We notice something here:† We do not only construct the world (through the effect of the CPU-general ), we also take it in, without being totally conscious† of this ourselves, where the world comes from (namely the combinations of assimilations).
††††††††††† That is, Awareness† has an ability to see the world in such a way, as though the world as it appears to us, was not first constructed by us; but rather as though it was something "on its own"; something "different" that is not in any essential bond with us.
††††††††††† This ability of our awareness† shows us that there must also be more abilities of our awareness† than we had uncovered up to now.† (To now, we have the CPU-general† and the decisions (whereby these are just a variety of the CPU-general ) ;† we will leave it open for now as to whether or not we also need to define the original-assimilations †as an ability, or to consider it specifically different within awareness .)
††††††††††† Through its effects, the CPU-general† allows us to first "construct" the world as we find it today.†
††††††††††† This ability itself, however,† doesnĎt say at all that we can also "notice" its effects (the assimilations).† For the CPU-general †compares, assembles, decides.† Out of this, though, we can not deduce that we can also consciously or unconsciously put its results "into our knowledge" (for the CPU-general† doesnęt allow itself to be "seen", "noticable").
††††††††††† But also the classifying† and enabling assimilations† cannot make anything from themselves that we (our awareness ) can then get "knowledge" from.† For they themselves (the determinations) have belonged to our Bewusstsein since the very first impression; but neither from Space nor Time nor from connected-assimilations †(and in this way, also not original-determinations), such as, for example, "hard", "light", etc., can "knowledge"† be derived.
††††††††††† For the assimilations† first ensure that awareness †has "contents" for impressions; but they cannot themselves give us "knowledge" of experiences (i.e. to make conscious or unconscious).
††††††††††† We do know, however, that we can "receive" effects of the CPU as assimilation combinations (simply based on the fact that we can† "think", "grasp" totally consciously, and also because we know of unconsciousness through the effects of the CPU-general.)
††††††††††† That is, there must be an additional ability of our awareness.† Namely, the effect of the CPU †itself to even be able to "receive", "sense."††† And that is more specifically the AFF .
††††††††††† The AFF is not the ability to come into contact with other beings (this is the job of the CPU), but rather the ability to "sense", to "receive" the effects of oneīs own awareness (in other words to "recieve" the effects of the CPU-general).† This ability had to have been a further ability of our Bewusstsein† (in addition to the CPU-general ) from the very beginning (= from the first impression) and with every experience of awareness.
††††††††††† The CPU† and the AFF as the abilities of the Bewusstsein †first make it possible through their effects for us to even be able to create experiences (= that our Bewusstsein† receives the contents).† The CPU †in that it puts the original-assimilations† together, and the AFF† in that† it allows this to become conscious or unconscious to us.† The AFF† is something like the "reflection" for the effects of the CPU .
††††††††††† Both of these abilities together, however,† have some decisive "characteristics" (i.e. outcomes, from which we can then experience them; for both on their own do not have the quality that they can be "experienced"):† Both on their own are not "noticable," both are "invisible"; they are only noticable in their effects; and both must exist "outside" of Space† and Time† (whatever and however they are there).
††††††††††† In the case of the CPU-general , it is clear, for even the first impression of our Bewusstsein †(= the ability, which we will become more totally conscious† of) must come from its effects.
††††††††††† Space† and Time , on the other hand, are nothing at all on their own--until they are combined with classifying assimilations† by the CPU†† (because they themselves are only "possibilities" and not determining).
†††††††††††† Because Space †and Time† are first conceivable at all, through the effects of the CPU, (and also through the subsequent "reflection"; in connection with classifying assimilations; in the AFF) (through which (= CPU) the two assimilations of Space and Time are connected with classifying assimilations †to become determinations)--the CPU-general† is independent from both Space† and Time .
†††††††††† Or observed from our present perspective, it is "outside" of Space† and Time .
††††††††††† If one understands "Space"† and "Time"† as it occurs in everyday life (namely, as something "absolute"; or at least as with all relativities, also to remain constant without awareness ), then it might seem bizarre and even unbelievable to have the abilities of awareness (Bewusstsein) at hand (which we cannot "see" and "perceive", but whose effects we constantly notice in our "lives") which are totally independent from "Space" †and "Time."† This means to go beyond them.
††††††††††† If one is to understand Space †and Time† as we define them (based on our examination), then the ability of our CPU-general† takes on a purely logical trait, one which is not at all surprising.† What is important to understand is only that the CPU-general †is the ability which lies "outside" of all determinations (whatever it might be there).† That means, on the one hand, we can ďseeď all of its effects in all of our experiences (all of which are constructed from "determinations"), and on the† other hand, it itself is not subjugated to determinations at all.
††††††††††† This means that differences such as "once", "many times", "not once" "endless times," etc. are not permissible descriptions in relation to the CPU-general .† That is, one cannot even ask:† Is there only one or more CPU-generals ?† For the CPU-general† is not governed by any of our determinations.
††††††††††† The same is true for the AFF .† It, too, is not so spectacular.† Simply because the AFF† itself does not "function" to "assemble"; i.e. "create"; but rather only "reflects the assembly"; i.e. allows that something becomes conscious or unconscious.
††††††††††† We first arrive at the contents of our awareness† through the "reflection" of the product of the CPU† ęs effects (= the combination of assimilations ). Without the contents of our awareness , there wouldnęt be a connection between the classifying †and enabling assimilations† in our awareness† (and in this way, nothing at all); without this determination, considered on its own, Space† and Time† would mean nothing.† In this way, AFF† lies "outside" of Space† and Time† ; even the "Space" †and "Time"† as we understand these two terms in their normal language usage.
††††††††††† It is also clear that the AFF† is "invisible" on its own; that it remains "incomprehensible."† For when we get the contents, we also know through this (when one examines all of the facts, as we have done to now) that the AFF† must exist as the ability of our awareness, eventhough we cannot "identify" the AFF† as such, i.e. we are not able to come to a conclusion about its existence because of its appearance.† It doesnęt work to "sense" it, but rather can only be "sensed" indirectly through the contents, which are "made" within it consciously or unconsciously.
††††††††††† Just as is true of the CPU-general , the AFF† is not subject to Space† and Time .† For it is first through the AFF `s effects that make determinations at all available to our awareness .† First with the reflection of the CPU †in the AFF, Space and Time come to form (namely, in connection with classifying assimilations), with which our awareness can first make something out of them.† There must be the AFF, therefore, in order to even be able to make this possible, "outside of" and "independent of" Space† and Time† (and in this way, of course, too, "Space"† and "Time" as the concepts as we understand them in everyday use).
††††††††††† Here we want to point out that throughout our investigation, we have to realize that we describe abilities of awareness whose true and complete quality goes beyond our own comprehension.† Simply because the determinations which we need for this have no meaning for this ability (cannot be applied).††
††††††††††† † Nevertheless, these abilities can be "described" from our present standpoint on the basis of their effect on us (specifically, in the manner that they give our awareness† its contents).
††††††††† This decription can tell us how these abilities function here.† From this, we can come to conclusions as to how these abilities of awareness† are at least "procured" here (= seen from our standpoint as Bewusstseins); and also determine where these abilities must "come from" (considered from our present standpoint (= the possibilities of being able to recognize something corresponding to our awareness) ).
††††††††††††† But we are unable to define how and what these abilities are like there (= there, beyond our possible experiences).
††††††††††† However, it is possible here to describe the abilitiesę results (that is, also to find out how the abilities occur) and also to assess to where they reach beyond these outcomes.
††††††††††† Certainly all concepts which we use in our description of the abilities, as they are here with us, (= within our possible experiences--based on their present outcomes) have to be understood according to that which we mentioned concerning this ability thus far.† In other words, these concepts cannot be understood literally, but rather in the context of what we reached thus far.
††††††††††† How is it then in the case of the classifying †as well as the enabling assimilations?† Are there assimilations† which exist before the first impression?
††††††††††† In any case, assimilations† belong to our Bewusstsein .
††††††††††† Our Bewusstsein† first "exists," however, (the Bewusstsein† as we have understood it throughout our investigation as well as how we "find" it to be today) since the first experience.† (Even when the CPU-general† and AFF† "are" "previous to" or "beyond" as the abilities of our Bewusstsein, the Bewusstsein is no longer capable to have "experiences" there as we have formerly considered them).
††††††††††† The assimilations could not at all have "existed" "previous to" the first experience.
††††††††††† For then they would be "independent" from our "Bewusstsein ."† And this is, as we have already shown, an impossibility.† In addition to this, Space† and Time† first have an effect through the union with classifying assimilations† through the CPU, from which we, once again, first "experience" through the reflection of the CPU ęs determination in the AFF .†
††††††††††† The problem, thus, in the case of Space† and Time †is that these two cannot exist "before" or "outside" of our experiences (neither "before" the first experience nor "outside" of any other experience); but nevertheless, Space had to have been with the first experience, and Time† at the very latest with the second experience.
††††††††††† How is this for the classifying assimilations ?
††††††††††† Although we have not yet established the classifying original-assimilations , we can still say that these must equally be "elements" of our Bewusstsein.† For they cannot "be"† "on their own," independent of us.† They themselves can first become the "contents" of our awareness †through the combination with Space† (and Time ).† And first when they become the contents of our awareness †can we receive any knowledge of them.
††††††††††† That is, they cannot be individually on their own, independent from us; moreover, not before the first impression.† But they had to have been with us starting with the first impression.
††††††††††† Let us hold on to the fact for the time being that we must have all of the original-assimilations with the first impression, but these can not be "previous to" the first impression, i.e. "independent from us". (This is different from the case of the CPU-general †as well as the AFF ).
††††††††††† Let us turn again to the CPU-general† and the AFF.
††††††††††† Since both the CPU-general† and the AFF† on their own are "independent" from Space† and Time, it is understandable why the CPU-general has such "quick" "access" to so many memories.† And why it is "successful" in "processing" them so fast.† The reason is that the function of the CPU-general (totally consciously (or consciously), we are only informed about the function of the CPU-general in the form of an experience which contains the outcome of this function and not the whole process of this funcion) is not subjugated to any determinations.† It cannot deal with the memories "quickly" or "slowly."† Rather, simply "deals with" them.
††††††††††† Who decides what we register (i.e. to which specific contents our awareness comes)?
††††††††††† The CPU-general †.† For the AFF† can only "reflect"; "be sensed."
††††††††††† As we did at the beginning of the chapter, we can say:† First, it is decided (while this, too, is a variety of the CPU-general as well) what will be assemled, then the CPU-general puts this together.
††††††††††† Let us look more carefully at this proces of assembling.† How does the determination of the sequence take place, as we totally consciously †register it, in such detail?
††††††††††† On one hand, we know that† the CPU-general †decides what it will assemble next, and that it is the CPU-general which assembles it.† With this process, the AFF† can then only "reflect" ("allow to be sensed") the product of the effects of† the CPU-general.†
††††††††††† On the other hand, we need a further something of our awareness with the function of the CPU-general (namely in assembling one classifyed something after the other): namely, Time .
††††††††††† From the standpoint of† the CPU-general †and the AFF† (as the two abilities of our Bewusstsein , which must be there before the first impression) Time† is only the possibility to store more than a fixed, unalterable CPU-combination †in AFF .
††††††††††† Time †is, in other words, the possibility to first receive a determination which came to life through the assembling of the CPU† (with the help of the reflection of the AFF ) and then the other determination.
††††††††††† Time is not here before the first impression, but has to be here at the very latest with the second impression.† How can it appear?† (For it must "appear").
††††††††††† Since only one possibility is left to us, the answer is simple:†
††††††††††† Because the CPU† effectuates and this effect first becomes conscious or unconscious in the AFF --the CPU ††then "continues to" effectuate, and this effect again first becomes conscious or unconscious in the AFF -- this conscious or unconscious knowledge to have a "present" and a "past" impression (through the CPU-general , which stores this consciously or unconsciously in "memory," and this "memory" can at least be sensed at another time (which is all only be possible with the existence of the AFF )† ) is only possible through Time .
††††††††††† Since Time, such an outstandingly important enabling instrument of the awarenessę activities, cannot emerge out of nothing, it must have been "created", ďbe brought to lifeď.
††††††††††† And the absolutely only thing this could be is the effect of the CPU-general† on the AFF !
††††††††††† That is, the CPU-general† and AFF† "create" "Time" through their "activities."† Otherwise, Time †would never come into being.
††††††††††† That is, Time †is "created" through the two abilities of our Bewusstsein , which together first make that first impression possible by their "practical" (i.e. simply "subsequent") mechanisms.
††††††††††† Why is this conclusion the absolute only one possible?
††††††††††† As we have already pointed out, Time cannot exist on its own, but must belong to our Bewusstsein .† At the same time, we know that the CPU-general ††is first able to create all experiences through the reflection in the AFF.† As the CPU-general ††and AFF† are "outside" (considered from our present standpoint) of Space† and Time , and must be "before" the "formation" of our Bewusstsein ("how" and "what" they are "exactly" like there is beyond our ability to experience), we know where (and "how") these two abilities of our Bewusstsein† "come from."† For eventhough we cannot have any experiences (that means here: cannot understand) which tells us what these two abilities are like "there," we do know that they come "from there."
††††††††††† Time, on the other hand, cannot come from anywhere; Time† was not at† first in awareness †(and in this way, not at all); and yet at the very latest, it was in awareness with the second experience.
††††††††††† The only plausible conclusion, therefore, is that it is the practical effect of the CPU-general in the AFF† that "creates" Time. Time ęs existence relies on the interplay between the CPU-general† and the AFF .
††††††††††† The following should also be kept in mind:
††††††††††† Every classifyed something† is "assembled" based on and in accordance to the decision of the CPU-general , and is "passed on" to the AFF† where it becomes conscious or unconscious.
††††††††††† And it is precisely for this reason that every classifyed-something† on its own is timeless.
††††††††††† Because Time† first comes into being through the result of the CPU-general† in the AFF ; andTime† is, furthermore, only enabling--so determinations (= classifyed somethings ) are not dependent on Time , but rather on the CPU-general , the AFF† and the original-determinations† (of which we do not yet know how we arrive at them).
††††††††††† Since the CPU-general †and AFF †are "independent" of Time† (afterall, it is they which creates Time† in the first place), that which they "compose"--every composition on its own (classifyed somethings )--is also independent of Time .
††††††††††† (This is also clearly applicable when a determination itself is not only made of classifying assimilations †and Space , but also of Time .† Because in this case,† Space, Time,† and the classifying assimilations† ensure only the construction of this classifyed something .
††††††††††† Still this classifyed something† remains to be considered as a whole and on its own (i.e. without being considered in connection with further classifyed somethings) to be independent from Time , and in this way, also independent from "Time" (as we understand it in everyday life). )†† ††††††††† †††††
††††††††††† Consequently, when we arrive at an impression, not only is the CPU-general at work, (which first decided to put this impression together into that form as we register it through the "reflection" in the AFF) but we can also find in the AFF every previous classifyed something that was ever "brought to the AFF " by the CPU-general .
††††††††††† The AFF †itself is not a notion of subjugation.† That is, the description of "transitory" or any other concept does not fit as a precise definition of the AFF .
††††††††††† Simultaneously, every classifyed something† on its own is likewise "independent" from Time† , and with it, too, "Time."
††††††††††† We further know from our practical experience that the classifyed somethings† have to be in the AFF .
††††††††††† What can then be concluded from this fact runs as follows:
††††††††††† As classifyed somethings †have to be present in the AFF, we know something indirectly concerning the AFF :† It must be procured in such a way that in its "practical results" (this means in the way that it effects us (as Bewusstseins) ) it ensures that the classifyed somethings† are "in it."