In reference to our subjective experience of the content of the present moment perception available to us through mindfulness, we can discover that the content presented to us is of an essential axiomatic character (Mindfulness and Phenomenology). The axioms which we predominately wish to analyze here are those in which the Buddha claimed as fundamental and all applicable, in which we will alter slightly in their defining and expounding. The essences in question are those of desire and dissatisfaction with the present.
We find in our subjective experience our consciousness is directed towards objects of desire, whether these be in the form of mental or material content or physical acquisition or pursuit is indifferent to us here (abstract connections and the broad use of desire will be used throughout). Our consciousness is meaningfully directed towards the acquisition of its object of representation, one discoverable essence of this intentionality itself (not of the object of intention, but towards the very phenomena which is represented by the concept of intentionality or directedness) is its characteristic of desire. This desire is attempting to acquire something, which we experience as the object of attention. The essential nature of conscious direction with its foundation in desire necessarily implies that we do not currently posses the object of attention, placing us in a mode of deficiency. Coupled with the admission that we are in a constant state of directedness, which of course is transiently altered moment to moment, yet is founded upon an inherent desire which implies deficiency or lack, places a descriptive state of suffering, or unsatisfactoriness, as part of the normal state of being.
This all-experientially-pervasive aspect of Being in its totality, of unsatisfactoriness, drives our conscious experience both mentally and physically through life, and I believe is the natural product of evolutionary biology which truly seeks to work within the framework produced by evolution, towards the beneficiality of the genome (its survival, replication, copying fidelity). In recognizing dhukkha as being the first noble truth of life, in its essential nature being desire (contains desire to avoid, desire for change, desire for stability, in short, craving as well as clinging as well as aversion), the Buddha made the logical conclusion that if we wish to escape the dissatisfaction or suffering which characterizes our experience, which is discoverable by inflection and phenomenological analysis, we would have to eradicate desire. His conclusion on how to attain this is through following the noble eightfold path, which if carried out conclusively in perfect accordance with “the truth”, would lead to the dissolution of desire, which as being a fundamental underlying axiom supporting intentionality, would in turn eradicate suffering from our experience.
The problem is that in actuality, being biological beings, these terms are concrete and inherent in the very Being in which we are. Fortunately, we can recognize this nature, and find ways to realize the actuality of the first and second noble truths as being applicable as modes of the description of our Being, and based off the realization of such truths, work to navigate and become comfortable within the framework which we discovered to be underlying our existence. The framework of areas in which we could direct our intention to defining, and thus pursuing and through pursuit improving, is provided by the Buddha in his eightfold path… what each fold means, and the values inherent in them, are characterized through conceptualizations produced by us (or found in the conceptualization of values such as given by the Buddha, or philosophers, or other religions, etc. ) which in their defining and actualizing in a practical sense in our own experience can serve to a better or worse degree in improving our conscious apprehension of reality, as well as improving our wellbeing, and the wellbeing of those around us, in ways that are in alignment with our aforementioned value structure (Value Structure Instantiation). This understanding, pursuing and actualizing necessarily must include interactions with other Beings, as we discover them in our experience and thus they become part of the world which we wish to contend with, in recognizing the experientiality inherent in other beings, and possibility of better and worse states of being in in their experience, we are better enticed to follow better and worse moral structures in which to interact with the world, and thus to affect others.
In describing the framework of desire, if we wish to eradicate desire this itself becomes a second level of desire, if viewed from a phenomenological lens. E.g. in experience we may find ourselves contemplating the future, and our desire to have our present be in accordance with such imaginings. This produces an unsatisfactoriness experienced in the present, the result of desire. Thus we can hypothetically choose to follow the Buddha and seek to eradicate the desire, and thus we enter into the second dimension of desire in relation to the original object of desire (the actualization of a certain perception of the future.) In reference to this object we originally desired for its actualization in the first dimension, in the second dimension we desire to not desire this actualization or perhaps we simply desire to not attain that future perception. In any case, we are left wanting. The common Buddhist retort to the “problem of desiring to not desire” is that once we attain the object of our desire the desiring itself ceases. If we desire to go to the park, once we get to the park we no longer will desire to go to the park. If we desire to no longer desire, once we no longer desire, we will no longer desire. The only recognition that such a state of non-desire exists is a faith based claim upon the supernatural claim of Buddha’s attainment to it, which, if we analyze our experience, or anyone else that has ever lived, we can surely recognize the fallibility of such a claim. While it may be useful and beneficial to hold such a faith based belief structure, that path is wholly not the topic of our inquiry, as we seek to discover means of coping with our own experience, based on a phenomenologically sound base (as we so find in our experience, which is the limit to what we have to work with).The problem is that we cannot ever reach that place of nonexistent desire, and that desire itself is essential to the structure of our biological being and constitutes the very essence of our conscious experience, whether we like it, or believe it, or realize it, or not. I understand my own belief, finding, and perspective being here interjected, and wish to state that I believe my own belief itself to be fallible, and alterable, upon further evidence, which hitherto hasn’t presented itself to me, but altogether is unimportant to our pursuit of how to cope with the situations of a world we are currently “thrown” (Hiedeggerian) into.
By adding layers of desire in our quest to eradicate desire, we unknowingly are following the desire structure inherent in us. By seeking abstinence in response to overindulgence, we are merely trading one mode of Being for another, one set of actions for another, albeit perhaps with good intentions and good results, yet we are not escaping the desire structure. This isn’t a hopeless situation we find ourselves in, it isn’t good or bad, it merely is, and recognition of it can aide us in our conscious formulations of how to navigate through it.
Better or worse solutions are discoverable in response to navigating through the strata of suffering, intentionality, and desire. These can be improved by analyzing and expounding the eightfold path, or for better or worse through any other structuring of our Being we wish to view through. All methods of dealing with our current state of Being within the present moment are predicated on our acquired wisdom. The wiser we are, the better we handle the slings and arrows of misfortune, wisdom is the essential characteristic which represents our ability to traverse the landscape of life, and the noble eightfold path, as a method, is something we can utilize in the developing and implementing of wisdom. (Wisdom Ethics)
Nous – means mind, or Jungian psyche, so it is the general base for our subjective experiencing, which contains different components which themselves can be conceptualized and represented by different words, in reference to the totality of the psyche, or the nous.
Noema – is the thought, or mental content as experienced, the perceived object as it is meant by the subjective actor, what is intended through the act of thinking/perceiving/judging, the subjectively experienced moment that is perceived
Noemata – different perspectives or moments of perception relating to a single conceptual object, the characteristics which define the noema
Noesis – denoting a part of the mind such as one of the acts of mental experience, the mode of being which is background to the presentation of the noema in experience, that which is the active abstract mode manifesting content
Noetic content – content directly relating to the mental act itself, the noesis, as object, in its processing, such as the characteristics of the act of thinking, perceiving, judging, it is the description of traits which are embodied in the noesis
The thought itself, as we experience it, and its attributes and characteristics presented to us subjectively, as in the object thought about, and what is meant by it (the intention of intentionality) would be the noema. This noema is experienced momentarily, as what we perceive in the moment of thinking as being the object of thought would be depicted as the noema, a collection of various perceptions directed at the self-same object of perception or thought, the collection of norms in their unity as depicting an object, would collectively be called the neomata, or the description and characteristics of the momentary experience itself. This I describe as the neomata or the noematic content. If we were to have thoughts arising, the process of being which is “thinking” – being – the conceptual explanation part of the mind, would be a noesis, which contains an underlying essence which describes it in itself, the noetic content, what is that content we use to describe the act of thinking itself.
As an example, if we take the subjective experience of imagining a unicorn in our head. That image we get, and the conceptualization which corresponds to it in a subsequent moment of “thought”, and the meaning given by such conceptual symbolization in another moment, would be different noemas. The perspective which we inhabit and experience in the present moment is the content of the noema. All these different moments of being, experientially, which relate to the object of thought (the unicorn) are different noema, the way in which they all relate to the object, in the abstract intentionality and the characteristics of it, would be denoted as neomata. The noesis would the act of imagining as it is itself, giving rise to such an experience. That mode of being in which the noema occurs, that which is background and presupposed by the subjective experience, is the noesis. The noetic content would be the components which make up the noesis, or what constitutes imagining, such as doubting, mental imagery, belief, intentionality (directedness of though towards an object), all this content is underlying the act of noesis, of imagination, which in its subjective experience is shown in different ways, one of which would be the experience of imagining a unicorn, in its describing, picturing, doubting, questioning validity, judging, etc.
(Reddit Question: Do you speak in conversation the same way you speak in your writing?)
No, I don’t speak verbally the same way I write, mostly due to the factor that I solely write about philosophical concepts, and most people I talk to aren’t having a conversation with me about philosophical ideas. Aside from that, the ability to precisely articulate ideas are accentuated in writing, as we are able to visually examine the conceptualizations of our language into coherent strings of words, sentences, paragraphs, etc., the luxury of which we don’t have in conversation. Whereas we mostly speak in common conversation “from the hip” and more spontaneously, when I write a higher degree of clarity and precision is used, and careful selection of diction, as well as more time is taken in thought before language is produced. The degree to which rational coherency of ideas is expounded in thought or speech is less than the conscious reiteration of examination of a string of words visually presented to us, we can comb over it, examine its parts in relation to a whole, and modify the structure to be a clearer representation of the intuited representation in which we wish to re-represent.
We must speak to our audience, and when writing philosophy my audience is truly an audience of one, for myself. It would be truly naive to suppose that an external audience is attuned to the exactly relevant literature and terminology which I’ve been exposed to, and vice versa, I understand the lack on my part to have the completely relevant experiences to render someone else’s work intelligible in the way in which they seek for their ideas to be represented based on their experience, to the exact same degree as them (ideas, of course, are shareable, but our direct connection to them is wholly unique). Our experience, our entire understanding, mode of Being, perception, and language acquired (and its specific definition) are all unique to the individual, and whereas it contributes to the clarity of an author to seek to represent their ideas in an accessible nature to others, when one writes for one’s own creative production and expansion of understanding (and representation of reality) one doesn’t need to explicitly define every term they are using so as to improve the experience of an external audience. I’m aware that we all have different levels of experience with different authors, and that’s okay, but I truly write for my own expansion of understanding, and secondarily sometimes choose to share as someone else might find it interesting or insightful. But when writing on phenomenology you have to use loaded terms which entail a longer description to be able to pack more meaning into less words. The usage of personalized definitions to certain words and their esoteric nature is often criticized in the accessibility of philosophy, but I see this aspect to be of a positive nature. Whereas the layperson would find it difficult to wade through more advanced thought due to the usage of loaded terms and distinct differentiated definitions of specific terms, this form actually renders the ideas in a work more articulate and specifically clear to the person who is able to decipher it. The ideas become more profoundly expressed when the definitions of the concepts which make up the structure of an idea are explicitly described and specific to a certain representation. There are undoubtedly different philosophical writing styles, and areas of inquiry, and they aren’t all for everyone.
Few people “enjoy” reading Husserl, Heidegger, or Hegel, due to their writing styles, yet if you “strive on diligently” and attempt to understand what they are saying, it can be incredibly rewarding and insightful.
I wish to make a few distinctions between certain concepts such as “known unknown” and “unknown known” within two different contextual frameworks. The first is between conscious content, and reality. The second is between our subconscious content and conscious content. I don’t wish to be bogged down by the formal relation of the two, but will do a preliminary defining in a simplistic way to make the proceeding distinctions clear.
By conscious content we are referring to conscious noetic experience, this describes the content which is able to be subjectively experienced, or that which we can become aware of as content within consciousness, whether it is content of the 5 senses, or content of the mind, including; thoughts, perceptions, memories, or in general terms the mental formations we are consciously aware of (includes abstract symbolic representations, language, conceptualizations, phenomenological content).
By reality we are referencing the totality of the empirical world in its real existing, what is true about the world, and about our experience. When referring to reality, we are referring to the truth. This doesn’t mean the apparent or perceived truth, but as it truly is. If we wish to be more specific, then it must be stated that we cannot truly know this reality, as all we have to work with is our own perception of it (On “Truth” Claims). Granted, we have logical tools which point us in the right direction. In any sense, it doesn’t matter if we can accurately define reality, or the “thing-in-itself”, as we always have our own biological lenses which give us the vantage point of a separate unit. In reference to reality here, we truly mean only what “really exists” in an abstract sense, the word “reality” to be an abstract symbolic representation of what is true about the world and its contents in general (follows our prediscovered logical maxims – them being judged as accurate descriptions). By reality we mean that which is accurately depicted and recognizable by us as being constituted by objective knowledge in short, scientific knowledge, material knowledge, or even knowledge which constitutes the formation of subjective experience. It is not this objective knowledge itself, it is not the logical and rational proof, but rather the content which this is used to describe. Of course the intricacies and details of this surely could constitute a novel.
As for the subconscious we are referring here to that which is below consciousness, and is therefore not in conscious experience. It contains the unconscious personal content, such as memories, habit formations and their manifestations, in short, the aspects of our psyche which are not contained in the present moment conscious experience. It contained evolutionary aspects such as archetypes and biological drives and motives. This entails the perspective structure which filters content through a values system instantiation, which is in turn modified by, primarily, genetic factors, leading to evolved values based on our environment, cultural, and learned acquisitions. This perceptive system and its filtration of content produces data which gives rise to consciousness, which produces the conscious awareness of a certain content within the present moment. In a neurophysiological sense it is that which organizes information from internal and external data and selects through a “care” or “hierarchical importance” structure to be displayed in conscious awareness. This, of course, can be subject to a feedback loop of consciousness choosing to direct it’s Being in such a way to produce new habits, and new information to be integrated into the subconscious structure, affecting future conscious experience. The recognition and utilization of this process, is priceless. This subconscious produces the content that enters conscious moment to moment, yet also contains content which hasn’t entered into conscious awareness, or isn’t currently in conscious awareness. This content is able to be realized by consciousness as existing, but it truly acts and exists unconsciously.
A known unknown, using the relation between conscious content and reality, means that consciousness realizes that reality contains some information, yet realizes its own ignorance in regards to its content. For example, one may know that differential calculus exists, but is unaware of its contents or what the concept entails, or one may know that the sun is a star, and know that it is reacting in a way converting hydrogen to helium, and know that there is a method, but in both instances, one doesn’t know the how or why, but truly knows that it must exist, that it does exist, but its content is unknown. This is a known unknown in this relation.
An unknown known, using the relation between conscious content and reality, means that consciousness doesn’t realize what it is missing, i.e. consciousness doesn’t realize its own ignorance in regards to content in reality. Reality “knows” in that it contains some information, with which in reference to consciousness doesn’t “know” or even “know to be unknown” and thus is an unknown known. I would attempt to give an example, but if I knew one, it would be known. Say someone didn’t know algebra, and didn’t even know of its existence, or didn’t know the chemical composition of the sun, or didn’t even know that the sun existed, this would be an unknown known in this reference.
A known unknown, using the relation between conscious content and the subconscious, means that consciousness realizes that the subconscious contains some information, yet realizes its own ignorance in regards to its content. This can be in regard to cultural, societal, biological, or in general, determinate effects of prior causes acting upon the psyche. Consciousness is aware of their presence but unaware of their exact relation, thus it is a known unknown in this context. An unknown known, using the relation between conscious content and the subconscious, means that consciousness doesn’t realize what it is missing, i.e. consciousness doesn’t realize its own ignorance in regards to content in its subconscious. The subconscious “knows” in that it contains some information, with which in reference to consciousness, consciousness doesn’t “know” or even “know to be unknown” and thus is an unknown known. This contains information that is repressed, or memories or habits which are not important or stimuli not present to bring that information into conscious awareness. Habits, latent abilities, knowledge not needed in present circumstances, are all unknown knowns on this reference.
I bought hell, built the stairway to heaven and continued onward. Through the sale of my soul, through the relinquishing of my conscience, from the turn to evil and conquering of good, the realm of hell became my own. The kingdom came at a price, a debt that can never be repaid. I decided to build a staircase to heaven, proving more difficult than traversing the road to hell. I came to the pearly gates, but what I thought to be my refuge, proved to be just another experience. At this point I had the knowledge of hell, and the knowledge of heaven, and I sat there, in heaven, reflecting on if it truly was better than hell. I decided it didn’t matter if it was or not, that the experience of both had passed, and I didn’t want to turn back to discovered grounds. Thus I relinquished them both. I didn’t climb higher up, or fall further down, but I went forward. I took the knowledge of both as a responsibility, and I took the responsibility seriously. I decided to create a new world, the common ground of Earth surely had been laid to rest long ago, heaven was great, but it just wasn’t for me, hell was even greater, but I had seen it all. I didn’t want to be God, I wanted to be me, and I wanted to create. So I did. I settled creating a new world, neither under the headings of heaven, or hell, or Earth, but rather, something unnamed, unexplored, untreated – untaught, unguided, and done solely alone. This new world isn’t really a place, it’s really a relinquishment of prior places. I figure the only way I can continue on, is by not being tied down. I don’t want to be tied down by the common world, I don’t want to return to hell, or climb to heaven. I don’t want to describe where I’m at or where I’m going. I just want to overcome it all. I don’t want to be satisfied with constant dissatisfaction, I don’t want to be unhappy, but I definitely don’t want to be content. I can’t live by law, I can’t stand maxims, wisdom really is my only compass. Life continues on, at least for me, at least for now, and I don’t really want to walk along a path already paved. I just want to keep paving. It always sounded right, walking the middle path, finding balance between chaos and disorder, finding peace in times of suffering, learning, experiencing, broadening my mind. This sounds good, but it isn’t what’s actually happening. Mere experience is happening, and if I say I, I really just mean the organism within my conscious awareness, that which I think to be me when it goes unanalyzed. Because it’s easy to talk this way, and it’s already been looked in to, so I know that formally speaking it’s an illusion……but that doesn’t really matter. What does matter? Well things matter to me, and things don’t matter in the big scheme of things. The universe doesn’t care, but I surely care. I care about the content of my experience. I care about following my conscience, I care about being virtuous, not in a way prescribed or written down by anyone previously but in the way that is in alignment with my own value system. How do I know when I am not in alignment, or when I am? I know. Of course I know. My conscious experience is altered by my conscience judgment of how I spend my time, or what I say or think or do. These things produce an emotion, if it is in alignment with my value system, it will surely produce a positive emotion, if not, a negative one. I’m not saying this value system is built by a “free agent which is me”, don’t get me wrong, my values are accumulated from a lot of places. We’re talking biological, social, cultural, based on my experience, based on conscious contemplation, based on acquired wisdom. What I’m most proud of is this acquired wisdom, because it took me my whole life to develop it, and it’s still developing. I had to experience a lot, try a lot, test a lot, experience a lot, in order to learn a lot, become a lot, discover a lot. So this web of causality is obviously unique to me, and it is this wisdom which carries me along. Of course I’ve read a lot, seen a lot, studied a lot, but I’ve also wrote a lot, created a lot, and done a lot. So this gives me an intuition that tells me I’m on the right path, but I’ve also developed an aspect of my belief system which keeps me honest, that of fallibility. In other words, I believe many things passionately, with justification and evidence and reason, and they all follow the laws of logic and are non-contradictory, I know this because I have no dissonance and no conflicting beliefs, but yet, I think this comes from, most of all that is, the belief in the inherent fallibility of all my beliefs. I believe things, yet simultaneously hold the belief that I could be wrong. Wrong meaning a lot of things here. I could be off by a long shot, or merely hold an idea which is only partially true, or a step towards something greater. In this way I avoid dogmatism, I avoid maxims, I avoid finality in all truth statements. To me, nothing is final, nothing is the end all, and by falling back upon this openness and fallibility I leave open the possibility for growth and additional knowledge, I leave open a range of experiences, conceptualizations of reality, modes of being, which would otherwise be shut off to me. It is through this that I have passed through many different epochs of life, from earth to hell to heaven and onward. You see, I bought hell, I built the stairway to heaven, and I continued onward. Basically just my life in a metaphysical nutshell.
My use of religious terminology is at its core extremely blasphemous, yet I use it in a way which is perceived as authentic for its relevance to situations, when anyone who knows me would immediately recognize it as sarcastic. I do this while simultaneously holding the value of the statement for its metaphoric representation of relevance to the expression which I am looking at conveying. While I seek to be authentic in my communication of appreciation for religious terminology, I also seek to display the flaws of the belief structure through the absurdity of the actuality of the statements. Thus, in blaspheming in such a way, I do it with a dual intent of representing my expression with language I don’t literally believe in, while poking holes at the absurdity of the literal interpretation of such claims to thus be enlightening to the religious believer. This I do consciously, with good intent, although, in many instances, the person I am exclaiming such remarks to doesn’t understand the true nature of such claims, due to their acceptance of the terminology as being socially valid.
While I appreciate every religion for its contributions to the development of morality and cohesion of human civilizations through tradition and a semi beneficial value structure, I simultaneously see the error in any supernatural or faith based claims. While no supernatural claims find a lodging in my mind, I still recognize and appreciate the use of religion as a tool for many people, and for those people I can see the beneficiality. While philosophy is high on my value structure, and unmediated and unrestricted truth seeking is truly my motivation to pursue philosophical and scientific descriptions of reality, I recognize that philosophic interests aren’t universal across humankind. Likewise, most people do not have the time nor will to devote to the development of a moral system or the endeavor of uncovering and elucidating a hierarchical individualized value system, and to them, I can understand the adoption of a religious system which is laid out in a preset, easy to understand, and ultimately semi-beneficial belief system. The moral system produced by religion is sub optimal, but still preferential to the psyche which lacks a conscience motivation system required to be a good person, and to this, I see the use of religion as providing. While metaphysical claims made by Abrahamic religions in the form of describing life after death, or a loving creator / personal god, are undoubtedly false in their description of the reality which we inhabit, they are a necessary motivator for many people to become good people, in the absence of rigorous philosophical inquiry, which is afforded to the few who have the luxury of time and conditions conducive to proper exploration of a logical system built from the ground up devoid of the present plan laid out by religions. The setting up of foundational values through archetypal stories, and the imperative upon acting in accordance with a higher power, which, as an ideal aim as embodied in the ideal of God or the “Savior”, we truly do see beneficial pragmatic utility in striving to live in accordance with such an aim. The point is, while many of us have the capacities to extract the psychological significance, many of us simply don’t have the time or interest to do so, and that is perfectly acceptable. To give up striving to instantiate these psychological ideas societally, isn’t what I’m advocating, I merely wish to acknowledge the pragmatism behind the continued use of religious institutions, given our current level of development.
Obviously it would be preferred if everyone had the time and interest to root out the metaphysical bullshit which makes false truth-claims and is used as a motivation and intention behind moral acts, in other words, people could have a good, beneficial, wise, virtuous characters for better reasons. These better reasons would be grounded in experientially elucidated comparison, upon the psychological modes of being which lead to meaning pursuance of an individualized nature, and thus wellbeing and reduction of suffering. If the outcome is the same, in terms of action, then we can easily see the use of religion, but through the intention which is presupposed in the action, we necessarily never come to equal actions. As the intention differs, the causal efficacy in terms of beneficiality into the future is thus modified. To do good for the sake of going to heaven, can be replaced be doing good simply for seeing the value and beneficiality of the causal structure in producing beneficial fallout as a result of action. For more information, see “The Importance of Intentionality”.
There is room for a phenomenological examination into the presence of enantiodromia, in reference to the Jungian and Neumann’s determination of the concept, and their theories upon it having a natural psychological function occurring as a real phenomena in our lives. There have been many expositions and uses of the terms in both of their works, but as to a centralized focus on the topic none exists that I’m aware of in outside philosophical treatises or in the phenomenological domain. Neither psychologist has expounded the basis for which it arises, that being upon the inherent essence of our psyche (producing both the conscious and the unconscious) to manifest the effects of enantiodromia, an analysis which undoubtedly must be carried out using a phenomenological method.
As we are beings who find ourselves “thrown” (Hiedeggerian) into a world unasked for, we necessarily encounter chaos within our experience as that which is counteractive to our ideal state of things. We find situations with limitless factors necessarily out of our control, experiences, emotions, thoughts, constantly arising and enabling us to have a potential range of options from which to decide upon manifesting in response to the present moments variants, this is the chaotic world of our subjective experience. As biological entities, the world does not present itself to us in a way which aligns with our natural goals, not to mention the more obvious examples within our experience such as our culturally informed societal goals, and developed desires. We find our consciousness constituted by a sense of consistent “directedness” (Husserl) towards objects and activities which follow from another aspect of our being, that of “desire; craving” (Buddhism), “will” (Schopenhauer), “will to power” (Nietzsche), and in general, “wanting”. This directedness of our essential Being in the pursuit of desire found within a transient world which is in its nature impermanent, conditioned, and chaotic, produces states of Being which are unique to that which we find in Dasein (humans for which their own being can become an issue for it-Heidegger). In this struggle to satisfy the directed nature of Being towards its specific desirous goals both unconsciously and consciously, we see an ever persistent attempt to wrestle with anxiety towards death and towards attainment of desire through managing the essential state of the world we find ourselves in, through imposing order upon chaos. This order manifests itself in the way we structure our being in opposition with the world in a way which optimizes our psychological experience within the present moment, according to the acquired knowledge (wisdom) which determines the degree of manageability we are able navigate situational content with.
In the learning process (wisdom acquisition) of the sentient Being, one finds oneself over correcting for the faults of inefficient ordering, this over-correcting, both in our attempts to order the chaos, as well as to avoid stagnation through manifesting change in our structure to combat rigidity (instigating chaos), is what has been described as enantiodromia in the psychological literature of Jung and Neumman.
Through our individual challenge of psychological management, we find ourselves on either side of a perfect harmony between a chaotic state of Being and an Orderly state of Being, or balance, which, if discovered, could end the pendulum swinging in any drastic fashion. Thus we unconsciously are coordinating our behaviors in response to our psychic state, which is determined through environmental and experiential stimuli to produce the current state of things as we experience them in the present. That being said, when our psyches are predominantly characterized by the presence of a dominant archetype, we tend to seek psychological resolve through the antithetical archetype. This process of dominant archetypes in an unstable psyche is eventually resolved through Jung’s conceptualization of individualization, which does not suppress the archetypes or have a dominant characteristic, but rather seeks to integrate them into a wholesome individual who recognizes their influence yet is able to be in control of the management of them so as to not be off balanced in regards to their effect over the individuals wellbeing. Thus we establishes ourselves as an individualized being, through the “discovery” and ordering of the subconscious’ contents into the awareness of consciousness, and integration of the two fields of the psyche into the totality of our Being. When our lives are characterized by a dominance of unconscious activity, we seek to impose our “will” upon our own structure, (a top-down control upon bottom-up dominance – neurologically speaking) the rectifying of such instability can be accomplished through what Neumann referred to as centroversion.
By consciously recognizing the unconscious’ power over our psyche, and recognizing the place and limits of both systems as being mere aspects of our integral whole, we begin to view the system which is our Being more holistically. A holistic view of our nature gives us the necessary knowledge to delve into the phenomenological analysis of the structure of this Being as it enables the manifestation of these multiple modes of Being. When able to retrospectively analyze “important” (more valuable/ memorable/ defining) areas of our past experience into certain generally definable temporal periods, we find them able to be classified as epochs in the development of our current Being. These psychical epochs are found as significant time spans which we are able to discover to contain indubitably essential information towards determining the next epochs essentially defining characteristics. When we analyze the general scheme of transference from one epoch in our lives development to the next, we can find the pendulum of enantiodromia present in its swing from the chaotic to the orderly, from the conscientiously depicted “good” to the “bad”, as we morally conceive of the terms conscientiously within each epoch, and vice versa, transforming our Being from one epoch to the next. It becomes present that patterns of psychological shifting have been taking place, as systems of knowledge and action are consistently being transcended by a new replacement ideology which contains within it the experiences of the past, yet purports to offer a new solution as a framework or mode of Being to oppose the state of thrownness which we then find ourselves in. As the defining of strata of conscience corrects for its misgivings in the “good” and the “bad”, progression is made towards a new system which is created through a dialectical progression as each epoch ends and contains new information as to its failures and changes it judges to be conducive to a better future state. In this process we find the development of wisdom through experience, as well as the gravitating of the pendulum towards a balanced neutral position. Thus the ancient adages such as “everything in moderation” as you get older you tend to “settle down”, settle down where? Settle down from jumping to extremities in the pursuit of a form of being which is well equipped to handle the slings and arrows of misfortune in existence.
How is a phenomenological realization of the enantiodromia which is a part of the structure we find to be the essence of our Being, useful to us who are able to conceptualize and realize the validity of it within our own lives? We can, containing as we do, detectable and contemplative modes of consciousness (available consciously to us, yet through deterministic means), contemplate our current position in reference to the optimal balancing place (being in reference to the pendulums center), which would mean an optimal life situated in the future which we would naturally fall past the in the swing of the pendulum, and work to unnaturally strive for its attainment. Whereas the process is necessarily unconsciously regulated through the advance of a subconscious or even consciously directed corrections made within our past modes of being, or in past epochs (great changes), we can take a more informed stab upon the greatest possible directedness of consciousness when we are able to view the picture holistically, consciously, after a phenomenological analysis. We can recognize our position and where we need to go, and direct our consciousness in an informed way towards the attainment of such a position. In regards to the totality of our Being and whether we seek to attain this as a short term remedy to our current psychological state, depends on our current disposition. If the desire so arises experientially to pursue centroversion consciously through diligent discipline consciously directed in its pursuits, which takes time and development (experience and knowledge), the choice is available to a broader and more precise extent to the phenomenologist who is able to determine his own position in reference to his own Beings location on the chaos/order spectrum, as well as the ability to consciously desire the pursuit of wisdom, and have the love of wisdom, which is philosophy, on his side.
While great persistent striving within a disciplined structure is often crucial to the attaining of goals, we must be wary lest we fall into psychological distress. We can consciously correct for this, without over-correcting, if we have the required wisdom to abstractly theorize about where the optimal psychological place lies, and subsequently to actively pursue these conscious goals in a practical way. In seeking to inhabit that space, we give attention to the Being which gives rise to both goal attainment and pursuit, as well as internal conscious wellbeing and psychological stability. I’m in no way saying that all-in pursuit of what is meaningful won’t produce psychological distress, but in the case in which our psychological wellbeing is hindered through our desires in our ordering of life too rigidly, we must enact wisdom to be able to navigate both aspects of the coin, the pursuit of our goals and what is meaningful, as well as what is psychologically beneficial to us. In no case should we over-correct to complacency, but with time and experience we can gain the insight and wisdom into how to circumvent these problems psychologically, as well as how to better direct ourselves to the optimal path that includes both important factors of our life (psychological state of Being and meaning-pursuing) which necessarily go hand in hand.
While I am aware this is nothing more than a basic structure into the practical outcome of phenomenologically analysis of enantiodromia, I hope it provides the necessary starting point and content that enables further inquiry.
The phenomenologists method of discovering the in itself of an object within consciousness (any phenomena) isn’t properly explained through an empirical or rational methodology, but rather through using an eidetic (internal intuition) reduction to reveal the essential nature of an object. This is done through taking the known characteristics of a phenomena as they are understood by consciousness (science, philosophy, psychology aides us in discovering the attributes relating to an “object”), and discarding any attributes or perceptions or judgments which do not constitute the nature of the object so as to not alter its form. This means any characteristic that is able to be removed from or altered within the object, while the object is able to retain its structure and “Being” after the reduction, is removed, and the essential characteristics are what remains. By removing the transient, we can gain intuition into the concrete essence of a phenomena. We, in part, are able to do this through applied knowledge of the phenomenological method, in concordance with our developed logical and rational capacities, the data called into question acquired through our perceptive system selecting content through a value hierarchy structure. We must have knowledge of, and consciously employ a phenomenological method to properly carry out the eidetic reduction, and this, if carried out sufficiently, can provide us with foundational features which we can verify subjectively through experience. The ability to linguistically describe a process, and its accuracy in being a symbolic representation of that content, relies on our conceptual vocabulary and our ability to articulate the abstract essence into a relatable and meaningful content. Through the positing of a questionable concrete phenomena within the realm of consciousness, we are able to cognitively model the content and imaginatively vary its attributes until a limitation found within the object of desire is reached so that any further reduction or alteration would fundamentally not apply to the object, revealing the invariable, or essential necessary form or shape or pure essence of the content in question.
We must not mistake the Being of our own consciousness employed in the act of cognition with the content within consciousness, both are separate phenomena in which the phenomenologist is able to scrutinize. The mode of Being which is able to employ an eidetic reductionist method is itself an object which can be analyze by the phenomenologist, as is any other content that is able to be imagined by us. The conceptualization of objects allows us to properly bracket the content and organize it into our mental framework, allowing a ready-to-hand language in which to work with in our efforts. As we become aware of a content arising within consciousness (can even be the awareness of awareness in a meta sense) we can run that object through the eidetic reduction to be able to apply a description to the content in a fashion that reveals its essential nature in a way that is clear and objective, albeit, if experientially intuited then the content uncovered in the reduction is true to its nature, an symbolic representation is necessarily related to this true nature by degrees of precision according to our ability to articulate and preciseness of concepts in denoting their represented phenomena. This defining, or application of a description which relates the essence of a phenomena, isn’t a material or empirical fact, as science can discover, but more of a hypothesis into the nature of an “object”. This hypothesis can in turn be objectively validated in its externalizing through applying logic and reason, as well as philosophical argumentation, to prove its usefulness and beneficiality. This explanation of a phenomena produced through the eidetic reduction, due to its abstract nature, is discoverable solely by the philosopher in his ability to clarify an abstract phenomenon. It is the job of the philosopher to transmit a clear and articulate description, and must not, in my opinion, ever claim the depiction as being more than a hypothesis. While certain hypotheses properly discovered using this methodology are surely to be miscalculated, varied by biases and judgments, or wrongly concluded upon based on the limited perceptibility and the mental substratum’s natural limitations, we can conversely discover descriptions of essences which prove to be logically non-contradictory, as well as useful or beneficial within the philosophical realm of comprehension.
Thus the discoveries of phenomenology can be used to inform our belief and value structures, and reveal aspects of reality not able to be unveiled through a strictly empirical, deductionistic, inductionistic, or scientific methodology. This standard methodology, science of psychology, deals with facts and truth seeking of phenomena in their perception to us in the external world (also material phenomena constituting the foundations for our internal world – consciousness), what phenomenology allows us to do is take a lower resolution image of the Being which is engaged in scientific endeavors, analyze the theoretical explanations of scientific discoveries, methodologies, and allows us to conceptualize the makeup of scientific findings so that the content is more accurately represented to our human perspective, from the human perspective, to the human perspective. The perceptible system is the foundation for which datum arises in consciousness, the essence of which is discovered in phenomenology. This consciousness, therefore, is necessarily presupposed in any scientific endeavor, and always modifies the endeavor and interprets it through biological lens. The facts of science are truly external facts, while our conceptual representations of them are merely models. Phenomenology allows us to parse the data discovered in science while simultaneously analyzing the description which we apply to such data through the use of our language, or mathematical logic, in order to not only give a more truthful representation of it, but also to differentiate and isolate specific components in a way that gives insight into the specific nature of each separable piece, or as the whole (the totality of aspects which makeup the essentially of a concept if it has constituent parts).
While a particle can be scientifically and mathematically theorized to exist, and can be found in a laboratory to exist, the perception of such an object is always altered by the observer, not only in the conscious content arisen in experience, but in the very ability to perceive, and the necessary value structure through which it is filtered. The significance, or sense, that we don’t seek out, but for which we find to constitute the intentionality of our being towards the data, is posited in the revelation of the data, and we become aware of content through the system which selects for it. Aside from conceptualizing content discovered in the phenomenological lens, in the natural mode of being we also come across difficulty in parsing data and affecting it based upon the mode of being which we inhabit in our directedness towards it.The microscope used, the light interference upon the particle and upon the instrumentation used to record it, our own eye sight and mental reflection of it, our mental state of recognizing such data and symbolizing them consciously, is all variants in interpreting the particle. From every perspective, from every moment, the content of such depictions is altered, yet theoretically, the object exists objectively. To describe it as it truly is, being that we are humans located in time at which both us (our conscious mode of Being) and the object in its essential nature are constantly in a state of flux and impermanence, requires philosophical and grammatical cohesion with the application of logic to really nail down the underpinnings of what makes something what it is, the in-itself of an object thus can only be articulated, or the sense of it experienced, only in partial relation to the fullness of its actuality. The natural way of interpreting data, and thinking of scientific discovery, is by just taking the data as they are discovered at face value, without analyzing the aspect of human intervention which always is a variable in the perception of any content, being that we are limited to our human state. Recognizing the indeterminateness of our experience and how it relates to the analysis of scientific discovery, leaves us open to the normal way of viewing and describing phenomena, without taking into account the human experiential aspect which is side-by-side to the present moment awareness and creation of the object of inquiry. We ignore the essence of the content in our naturally progressing and transient conscious experience, and therefore lose our own possibility of deeper insight into the nature of the content of consciousness and the mode of Being which coincides with the awareness of such content. In science, this can amount to the improper conceptualization of phenomena, creating an obfuscated description (inarticulate, not properly described or defined concept or group of concepts) which misses out on the possibility of a more accurate representation, which would be, for us, possible through a phenomenological investigation.
The phenomenological conclusion, taken to its limit (the limit of an investigation with itself as object) produces a result that was discovered through a much less vigorous method – without our current understanding of logic and reduction (as well as a lack of science) – over two thousand years ago. The concluding remark upon the essential aspects of phenomena themselves prove to be unsatisfactory, as is the natural state of our conscious experience, by the very absence of integral essence to phenomena. All phenomena, outside of the bounds of our conceptualization, are at their core essence less, as they are interdependent with every other conceptually described phenomena. All phenomena are impermanent, transient, timeless, and lacking a core structure in their facticity. All phenomena as we discover them in our conscious experience are constantly in a state of change, and exist due to a causal structure predicated upon a conditioned nature. They appear as they do now because of factors which preceded them, and they are being altered within the present moment, and will be different in the future in regard to how they appear to us, as they are themselves not concrete entities. What can become a concrete entity, for us, in our experience, isn’t a truth about the content of reality (a phenomenon) but rather a truth about our mode of being as it represents phenomenon to itself, even if that intentioned content is itself. This is only stable in an abstract manner, about metaphysical concepts, such absolute truths appear foreign to the natural mode of Being, yet are discoverable through introspection and philosophical analysis – namely phenomenology. Such absolute metaphysical and representational truths are such as the statements “all phenomena are conditioned” “all conditioned phenomena are impermanent and subject to change” “all phenomena is absent of an essential nature” etc.
In conclusion, philosophy, and the phenomenological process, cannot produce a factual representation of the essence of a phenomena existing in reality or our experience, because by its very nature, it is a representation. That the representation works to provide a logically successful result, that is inherent within the structure, such as deductive truths, are rather abstract truths about logic, than being a phenomenon that exists in the world
What I refer to as the content that is unfindable as a fact in reality would be in reference to the essence or permanence of such phenomena such as the mode of Being which underlies the ability to produce the consciousness positing the logical truth aforementioned. The argument that a representation is factually in its alignment with reality is a perversion of the word fact, or truth, in the way I am using it here. While facts about the world do exist, their nature is purely abstract and general, and not existing in the conscious minds of humans. What this means is that phenomenology doesn’t produce facts, but logical descriptions in the correlation between conceptualized groupings of reality (into concepts, language, or mathematical formulations). These groupings or descriptions aren’t merely mental constructs, as their existence (such as mathematical numbering) isn’t merely a product of our mentality, but rather such things are merely to be taken as a mental construct arising in consciousness in the form of language and symbols which themselves (the symbols) are representative of an abstract way of perceiving reality. These symbols in their ordering and relation can produce a result that is logically true, but this isn’t the unfindable empty essence of a phenomena which phenomenological inquiry is aimed at discovering. Nevertheless, the inquiry isn’t fruitless, it can strip away the unnecessary and variable content to find an invariable shape of a concept which is representing a phenomenon, to better understand the phenomena, and how it relates to our picture of reality or how it relates to us in our lives, etc.
The mode of Being which is perceiving reality, must be understood as it is, as just that, a mode of our consciousness producing a perception using mentally constructed language (symbology) to represent a perceived phenomenon within the world. This is an accurate prediction. Now in the logical and seemingly objective venture of phenomenology to be able to produce conclusive statements as to the essence of a phenomena in its concrete invariable form, isn’t a fact, as all phenomena themselves are constantly changing, impermanent, and inherently “empty of an essence”, rather what phenomenology can profess to produce is the logical ordering and articulation of the symbology which is a mental representation as it relates to the phenomena as it appears to us in reality, to a greater or lesser degree, depending on its clarity and depth and scope of comprehension. This means that it can be beneficial and useful to us in our human endeavors, as we are a conceptualizing, experiencing, living, Being, with modes of consciousness that are able to use value systems and interpret reality in a more or less beneficial way to be better in line with its actuality. The phenomenological method aids us in progression along this path, and any deep inquirer can use it to better articulate the state of reality, but the point I wish to stress here is of the nature of its conclusion must not be posited as a fact, or as having concrete existence, but rather, its utility, or pragmatic usefulness, in aiding us in the human experience of understanding reality, which is great, considering were human.
If the contents herein seem to be contradictory, they are, as a progressive comprehension of the use of phenomenology itself is being presented. The contrast between our normal mode of intuiting (regular perception) and a phenomenological examination of a transcendent essence, necessarily refers to two different modes of Being, and consequently two different modes of Being, characterizes by different attributions. And thus different rules and conclusions support and follow from their exploration. The logical formulation of concepts which led to their conclusion is a building process, through which diametrically opposed beliefs are found in succession, and through a Hegelian dialectic, the contradicting truths are superseded to produce a picture which contains both truths within. This process occurs across the span of all conscious development, and this holds true for the process of phenomenological methodology and understanding, the discoveries found and understood through eidetic reduction might contradict the discoveries of other inquiries, and the summation of both contradictory “truths” may necessarily be transcended by a further conceptualization which in its formulation can include both aspects of reality. Thus in phenomenology we are absurdly (Camus’ definition) seeking the meaning to the essence of an object within a meaningless world, finding truths about aspects of reality in content which has no concrete immutable truths, without illogically being unreasonable in our discoveries. There is a place and a usage to these terms that is both deeper and more transcendental than immediately meets the eye. Phenomenology can find the essential structure to phenomena as to their representation in our consciousness, yet recognize the essence less of the actual phenomena themselves.
Here I wish to delineate several related terms to better differentiate their usage and respective attributes. The terms in question are that of mindfulness, philosophical phenomenology, and psychological phenomenology. Edmund Husserl pointed to key differences between psychological phenomenology and philosophical phenomenology, but here, for clarification and ease of understanding, I wish to additionally employ the use of mindfulness or Vipassana in the Buddha’s conception. These terms are used in the study of our own experience, and all are different possible states of Being we may enter into, and can potentially be used towards specific aims once they are unveiled to us within our own experience. They are Hiedeggerian “modes of Being” which can become open options to us (due to deterministic causality) in the exploration and truth seeking in the direction of comprehending and conceptualizing our own experience.
We begin with an analysis of the content of our consciousness, through introspective awareness, this is defined as mindfulness. Through mindfulness we can direct our consciousness to become aware of the contents within its sphere of awareness within the present moment (Basic Vipassana and Samatha Meditation). When we knowingly are aware (meta awareness – aware of our awareness) of what is happening within consciousness within this presentment, we can learn about the nature of consciousness, and gain insights into its fundamental nature (philosophical phenomenology) as well as its development, prior and post causality, what brings certain aspects into awareness and how we act and behave in response to them, and what effect that experience has upon us (psychological phenomenology). Thus we use mindfulness as a groundwork structure to gain insight into the two fields of further application. Mindfulness allows us to be aware of what content enters into our consciousness, and with enough practice in being in this mode of Being, certain insights can become clear to us (recognized as True).
Such insights available to be gleaned and recognized firsthand through the practice and training of mindfulness are broadly grouped into three useful, essential, basic truths about our inner experience. These are delineated by the Buddha, and while they are not comprehensive as to the content which is able to be uncovered, they are immediately intuitable, and beneficial to recognize. Those I speak of are the nature of non-self, impermanence, and the unsatisfactory underpinnings of our existence. The lack of a definite self, or ego, or non-self is to be discovered through the coinciding insight of impermanence, as their being no content or no phenomena to be found as being permanent. We find upon investigation that the content of our consciousness is in constant flux from moment to moment, and is characterized by its transient arising and fading away nature, as objects of consciousness (inner subjective content within the realm of consciousness within each moment) come into view and are replaced by new content. This causally led chain of content is discovered as modal changes to being without an anchor or headmaster, what we find to be its basis is simply Being as Being, rather than as Being as Self. Being becomes conceptualized, or experientially seen as, an active happening, lacking the “self” which we normally attribute as being an agent acting as the contributing subject to the content of our experience. Lack of “free will”, or, lack of control over what is the next content of consciousness, becomes apparent as a negative attribute of our experience. Mindfulness has the ability to allow the mindful practitioner to realize the suffering, or unsatisfactory nature of his being, through the experiencing of a consistently present desire, or craving, or clinging which propels the consciousness to become dissatisfied with its current state, and to be directed towards future states of the present moment. This is what Husserl terms intentionality, or the directedness or pointlessness of consciousness towards something. This intentionality, spurred by desire and dissatisfaction, is acted the content of our perceptual environment, including mental content, under the fundamental concern, importance, value, of what the perceived horizon presents as optimal to the totality of our Being. This directedness towards value is what Heidegger defines as fundamental to our Being, that of “care” (Heideggarian Terminology).
From the findings of mindfulness stems the scientific study of phenomenological psychology, which is a variant upon, and later rediscovery, of the very methodology which Buddha painted the picture of two thousand years prior. In psychological phenomenology, we take the experience of consciousness, and analyze them in a way towards an aim of giving description to the content found within. The describing of such content allows us to classify and arrange experiential content (psychologically phenomenological) in a cohesive and useful manner, in which to recognize and give a conceptual understanding to the causality of such states arising, as well as towards goal-directed states of optimization. This is the role of psychology within the phenomenological subfield, to identify states as falling into discovered groups of classification, and towards the arising of future states with a goal in mind towards the state of Being with which we wish to embody.
As to the nature of the Being which is able to experience mindfulness, we must employ a “science” of objective philosophical phenomenology to analyze and interpret its foundation structures. The role of philosophy is to describe the nature, essence, limit, scope, and characteristics of the Being which is able to experience, the being which we analyze, that which is necessarily most readily available to us, is our own, a “human being”, defined as “Dasien” in Hiedeggerian terms. When we seek to know what is universal about such consciousness, and its ability to experience, its ability to enter into different modes of Being, we seek the use of philosophy in its depiction. We find explanations attempting to attribute essential foundational, objective, universal, consistencies that form the basis of Human Being. Hiedegger finds our being inextricably linked to a tripartite temporality, as existing within a structure of time we didn’t choose to inhabit, the “thrown” of our existence (past creating a present creating a future). We are found within this period of temporality with the primary characteristic of having a foundational “care structure” (comparable to desire in Buddhism) which affects our entire existence. We find ourselves “thrown” into an existence which is unprecedented, and we have an anxiety towards death, a constant anticipation of future inexistence, and we embody the will to escape it (Buddhist dissatisfaction). The answer is to heed the call of conscience and to live authentically while seeking to understand our Being.
In Hegel we find that human consciousness exhibits a form of Being which is able to be in distinctive general modes, or forms of Being, which can progress itself through a dialectical method to higher states of more comprehensive knowledge and understanding of itself and reality. As contradictory truths are discovered in our experience, we seek to transcend them through forming a synthesis which contains opposing facts about our existence, allowing us to supersede our prior mode of consciousness. Subsequent philosophy is able to analyze and depict the Being which we are, Dasien, as containing infinite modes of Being which give rise to the experiences which shape these forms of Being, and which can progress.
Philosophy is able to generalize about the steps taken in the conscious development, or of a hypothetical ideal conscious development as derived from the objective nature of experience which itself is discovered through the use of reason and conceptualization within this consciousness, which is, the objective study of subjectively discovered philosophical phenomenology.
Seek Truth 