We begin a phenomenological analysis by bracketing all that is included in the transcendent domain of experience, as that which is wholly external to the subjective experience of consciousness, which here is defined as “immanent”. We bracket judgments, perceptions, beliefs, scientific truths, and externally gained insights (includes forms of speech). External content isn’t our focus, neither is our perception of appearances, only what the content of the consciousness doing the perceiving is essentially consisting of. In short, we do not deny or affirm the validity of the transcendent world (of that which exists beyond consciousness) we merely remove ourselves from the domain of the consistent striving to describe it, in order to focus on the essential nature of consciousness. In so doing, we neutralize any belief and judgment, and remove any causal explanation for conscious phenomena which we had acquired from a non-phenomenological method. What is left over after the bracketing is the space of immanent consciousness, which, unfortunately, if we wish to convey the experience of, and relate an essential structure, we must use a form of communication such as language which itself is not implicitly originating in consciousness, but is itself produced by consciousness as a coherent string of symbolic representation of any kind (mathematic, scientific, logical).

Although the objects in the “bracketed world” to which the form of communication we use is directed at describing isn’t itself part of the phenomenological structure which we are seeking to analyze, the object of the “unbracketed world” is for us, it does exist for us, in that it lies within the perceptible horizon of our gaze. The communication used in that representation is an experiential representation of the underlying subconscious structure, and the only insight we can gleam in a conceptual form of which produces a logically shareable structure depicting this inner immanent domain requires the use of the communication system which we contain in the acquired skill of language (used in tangent with other cortical structures in representation). To represent accurately phenomena outside of the immanent domain that isn’t itself part of the phenomenological Being “of consciousness”, is wholly the job of the Sciences. Thus the language which arises in conscious experience (thought / speech) is a phenomenon which is an acquired trait through social and biological conditioning methods, and is an output of the Being which we are in the way any intentional act, or content of our psyche (which is available in awareness, self-reflectively), also respectively is. The phenomena of language itself in its relation to the foundational, essential aspect of our psyche which gives rise to it, is a direct expression of that subconscious structure and bears a direct relation to it. In analyzing its arising in the manner just described, we can look for ways in which the experience of language in thought, in its manifestation, can point to truths about the nature of consciousness in its essential aspects.

The consciousness which gives rise to language in the form of thought, which we probably recognize as conceptualization of other phenomena, whether past, present or future, is contained in a mode of consciousness specific to the content of the thought just produced, and has many traits which separate it from other modes of non-conceptual mental states, or modes of Being, which is an area for deep inquiry and further expansion. The causal and correlative nature of different modes of Being in respect to each other, and their relation to the unit of the synthetic whole, is a web of causal interconnections which, if properly differentiated and sufficiently analyzed, we can tease apart to recognize individual relations as they relate to a phenomena available in experience.

So, we opt to attempt a description of the essentiality of consciousness and its different modes of which we are able to experience, and we can discover phenomenological truth which, due to bracketing, is far from verifiable outside of the context of our own experience, but since we have discovered it in our own experience, its validity is therefore never to be diminished as the truth of our perception of our own consciousness. We must use the gaze of conscious awareness in order to grasp conscious manifestations, or phenomena arising in consciousness (Mindfulness and Phenomenology), and we must use language to attempt to give a description of the phenomena and their arising and subjectively verify their place within the realm of consciousness. The findings in such a realm of inquiry are potentially limitless as the quantity of experience, place in time which we discover, and the reduction towards the isolation of experience is continually progressing. In other words, every moment of conscious experience is potentially a subject to phenomenological analysis, on the first degree, but even an analysis upon the consciousness which itself is performing the “first level” phenomenological analysis (a phenomenally directed mode of Being) is possible to be undertaken, in a “second level” phenomenological analysis, ad infinitum. Therefore, every moment which contains content in consciousness can be subject to a reduction and separation from the external world, and viewed “as it is itself” and thus we can discover thematic elements which constitute its essence and place within the sphere of the synthetic unity of consciousness.

Upon further work, we can later document the discoveries in the phenomenological sphere, and post analysis unbracket the scientific tools and discoveries which conventional knowledge has provided us with. The application and attempt of explanation of the phenomenologically derived “fact” by means of the now unbracketed realm of resources may provide insightful into the application, lineal development, causation, origination, and biological constituents which can be related to the phenomena. That being said, it would in practice be the applying of objective knowledge to subjectively acquired datum. Thus we can look at the intentionality, belief structure, or value structure, which we find to be acting upon our consciousness of a certain object, found to be characteristic of all experience in a phenomenological depiction of the present moment, and look for a description in evolutionary biology towards how the genes would benefit in survivability or profundity by the ability to manifest such behaviors in its host organism’s survival machine. We can apply psychological tools towards the optimization of such mechanisms, and test the efficiency of said modifications upon the subjective structure (how different value/belief structures affect subjective wellbeing). The realm of application for subjectively discovered and philosophically expounded descriptions of the nature of consciousness has real, objective consequences which, other than a mere depiction of reality as initially posited by the philosopher, can be used for practical expansion in every other domain of inquiry.

The conceptualization of phenomenological truths which we can discover in the essence of modes of Being which constitute consciousness, allows us to visualize the foundations for which every objective realm of inquiry necessarily stems from. The thought, the idea, the perception, the action, the speech, the phenomena, is only manifested through the human consciousness. The essential components of consciousness are metaphorically the filter between reality and our conscious understanding of reality, and it is here which is the root of all objective discovery. It is therefore not only beneficial but wholly necessary to have a phenomenological grasp of the Being which is the “background” to the arising of all subjective experience, and thus the point of departure towards which any truth-statement or conceptualization of reality must pass through. Consciousness itself must be thoroughly described as an aspect of the reality which it is part of, it is essential in any truth-statement, and it is always there lurking as the mediator between what is objectively discoverable and what is able to be subjectively experienced (including thoughts / formulations of transcendental reality i.e. what is not immanent consciousness, what is other than consciousness itself).

Original, naive, “natural” beliefs about the conditions of consciousness erode under further scrutiny when the proper aspects of understanding are bracketed. Ideas such as free will, or the positing of a self who controls consciousness, can become intuited as nonsensical when one is mindful of the essence of consciousness in its separateness from preconceived beliefs. Free will isn’t a phenomenon, and thus never presents itself phenomenologically, it only appears to be a concept that makes sense on surface level subjective intuition. There is no sense of the universe or logical explanation as to how such a thing could even exist, it simply is impossible and at a conclusively demonstrated (through phenomenological analysis) level its non-existence could be no clear. This doesn’t mean the idea of “freewill”, or a belief in it doesn’t exist, as we can obviously gleam from social interaction, most people act as if they have freewill, and it’s arising as a concept is merely a subjective misuse of language, and a fundamental misunderstanding into the nature of the organism which inhabits our consciousness.  In the unbracketed sphere of the “natural world” we find use of the concept of referring to “ourselves” and of the notion that “I” am in control of this organism’s manifestations, and we use such forms of speech to interact with others in a way that holds meaning in terms of practicality of ownership and responsibility. But, as to the essence of consciousness producing such states, and to the fact of the matter itself, we find that a confusion is found in the distinction “I am directing my attention”, from the true notion of the phenomena being “attention is directional, and being directed”.

A similar line of thought holds true for other contents produced by our fundamental belief and language structures, such as the belief in the existence of ideas such as depicted in supernatural claims, as well as religious certainties and the notion of a “self”. Different modes of consciousness are related to different degrees of “certainty” in form of “possibility”, “probability”, and “doubt”. The problem I see which should be crucially examined is our mode of being in “certainty”, which leaves us closed off for further investigation and truth-revelation. As long as we avoid any state of “certainty” and always acknowledge the probability of the relationship between our conceptualization of reality in its matching up to reality itself, including probability of inaccuracy, we remain in a state of consciously instituted fallibility, and thus are open to error correction and further development. In discovering which beliefs are more or less likely (in a probabilistic way) to be accurate depictions of reality, we can harken back to a phenomenological approach in order to analyze if the grounds for such claims are truly present in our experience, our experience being the formal dictator of all logical and necessary truths, through which we must thoroughly seek to remove any falsehood from, and actively seek to better inform the beliefs which underlie the modes of consciousness which direct our life the most. Due to the inherent belief structure which is actively present in our actions, thoughts, Being, and which work to manifest our subjective experience, and thus our wellbeing, we are wise to examine that the beliefs from which our behavior and thus our mental state arises from, are wholly in tune with reality in a way that is logically explainable to us, without which we run the risk of being prey to false notions of belief, and thus less than optimal experience and manifestation of a truth expressing character. As belief plays an optimal role in the formations of the path of our lives, and our experience is limited by the time in which we are alive on this path, we would be remiss to not work to form a foundation of belief which is on firm ground, at least, insofar as we are philosopher, and lovers of truth.

What is the best way to which discover our doxic (intellectually discoverable belief) structure and its validity in corresponding to the reality which we find ourselves in? (Value Structure Instantiation) Through a phenomenological analysis, and later through a psychological examination, and lastly, through usefulness, beneficiality, and accurate truth-representing in everyday life situations. Through differentiations in input (of belief), and output (psychological state), together with real, meaningful results (real life application and usefulness), we can determine which beliefs we desire to contain, desire being used in a way to describe which we would most like to contain. Of course it is impossible to consciously believe in something we do not bodily believe in, analysis into the validity of our beliefs will necessarily close us off from this possibility, to the ability that we as human Beings, are able to accurately conceptualize the truth, and the proximity we have to it will be in direct proportion to our environmental factors, experience, and knowledge. The production of this process would be the foundation derived through wisdom, in the production of wisdom, which can be used to guide our behavior in life, and therefore affect others, and thus produce a system I have described elsewhere as “wisdom ethics”. The component of wisdom ethics thus described in this portion of writing is upon the foundational belief structure, and the phenomenological analysis used to uncover it, which would give rise to the most optimal wisdom schemata, if we wish for the implications of our ethical conduct to be grounded upon the truth, to the best of our ability in uncovering it.