Personal

On April 21, 2020June 14, 2021 By Chris ShuttleworthLeave a comment

Here I wish to give a conclusive account of my view on abortion. Due to the complexity of the topic a full extrapolation of the reasoning behind my views will not be carried out, but rather a comprehensive look into where I stand in reference to the multifaceted topic. The facets I wish to delineate are those of the political standpoint, the moral standpoint, and the personal standpoint. As a caveat, there are innumerable cases which do not fit the norm, many of which I surely will not mention, and many more with which I am ignorant of existing, as well as their implications. To these we do seek to delegate some explanation, and the handling of such outlier cases must still be covered under the law in the political realm, and under wisdom in the ethical as well as personal realms.

Political Perspective

For the political exposition, we must clearly state what the role of the government is, and how it correlates to the issue of unborn child death (here any stage of development after conception and before formal birth/life outside of mother’s womb or an artificial embryonic life support system, will be denoted as “unborn child”). The government’s chief role is to provide the people for which it governs with the ability to live safely and with the ability to express themselves in a manner which does not physically harm other members of the nation. The people have a say in additional roles of the government, in supporting the people in their pursuit of wellbeing, enabling equality of opportunity, and the ability to have unfettered speech and creative ability so long as it does not physically harm other members. Private property, the social contract, taxes, are all beneficial and, potentially necessary, for the cohesion required for such a system to work optimally, but in reference to the issue at hand, we will be directly responding to the government’s role in protecting its citizens from physical harm. In the face of abortion, here we are discussing the voluntary ending of potential, future, human, experience.

Where there would be no life for an organism not existing after birth, as in the cases where its medically concluded that the child will die before being “born” due to complications or other unfortunate maturation processes, there is neither moral nor legal implications towards the parent’s decision of how to handle the unborn child. The obvious point of contention is in the unborn child’s foreseeable potential to suffer and experience wellbeing, or to be conscious of his/her experience. While this surely is an issue to be extrapolated upon in the moral sphere, the law must hold firm to its role in protecting its citizens, namely, the autonomous individuals which make it up. While the government holds this promise to its citizens, and thus bears the responsibility of providing this system to the members within its nation, I hold that the unborn child does not become a part of the nation until its birth. Only at this point, when it is living outside of the womb, outside of life support, are the government’s laws and regulations applied. If an unborn twin strangles its brother with the umbilical cord, surely the government would not charge it with murder. While people may feel an ethical obligation towards the preservation of future life, say in an 8-month old fetus, I in most cases likewise hold that the parents ought to allow the pregnancy to be carried to term. But the problem with government intervention is the slippery slope which stems from government intervention towards an individual’s autonomy, and their ability to alter, change, or create with their own bodies, without “harming” another individual – we cannot extend our moral intuitions into a domain that doesn’t hold precedent over such matters, or we are guilty of categorization error. While the terminating of a fetus may or may not cause conscious suffering to the unborn child, and thus holds moral implications, the government here has no say in dictating the actions of a mother to the contents within her own body. It is staunchly out of their constitutional realm of power, and is clearly a sign of government overreach into the personal sphere.

I view the unborn child at this point (not yet born) to be the product of the creative act of its parents, the right to which the government must offer the parents full support towards the possibility of opportunity, being as they are members of the contract that binds them to the laws and regulations of the nation. While a child does not choose the country to which it is born, the parent’s do, and hold responsibility over the life of the child as they raise her within the limits of the law, from birth till 18, the child isn’t necessarily selecting the laws which govern her, yet regardless, for issues regarding the safety and cohesion of the nation, must follow the laws overseeing her life, as “given” to the child by her parents (until she has the opportunity to move to a country or residence with whom the laws of the nation suit her will – or not – and face the consequences). The problem is in reference to a death sentence law towards a being which is not under the purview of the law, nor has reached the age of maturity in order to choose the country whose laws she wishes to be a part of. While a child between the ages of 0-18 also doesn’t hold this ability to move into a nation with the laws that she chooses to loom over her head, the parents hold the responsibility of the laws which do apply to the child within this development period. Being that the unborn child is the production of two people, operating outside of the realm of government influence, the unborn child doesn’t become subsumed under his parent’s national laws before birth, she succumbs only to the desire of her creators, who hold the power over her existence, or non-existence, up until birth. Thus there should be no legislative decisions regarding the unborn child, nor towards the parents and their action towards the baby.

I believe this argument holds good for the genetic alteration of a zygote to influence its development as well, through the usage of technologies such as CRISPR to edit the genetic sequencing towards more desirable traits and attributes (resistance to tumor growth, aka cancer, or hierarchical reasoning abilities, aka intellect, etc.). As genetic editing capabilities have surpassed the point where it is possible to alter the genetic source code of a zygote and thus the individual stemming from it, a country has no right to interfere in this creative product, just as they have no domain over the creation of the child, or not, as decided upon by the mother who houses the child. The obvious contention here is between economic viability and further separation of classes as the upper echelons of a society in terms of wealth have the recourses to afford this endeavor, and given the current landscape, such separation of the upper class is deemed “bad”, but regardless of our philosophical position on the topic of class and wealth distribution – this modification also is outside of the governments purview.

The argument will be posed that the unborn child is life, and therefore must be protected by the government whose role it is to protect its people’s lives. Additionally, the argument will be posed that since the fetus can experience pain and suffering, and thus physical harm, it is under the government’s authority as to its responsibility to provide the same equality of opportunity to live in the nation free of harm as rewarded other citizens of the state. The obvious difficulty here lies in what defines “life”, and I am stating that it isn’t life simply stated, as there are many forms of life which are within a country’s borders that don’t follow laws, but rather a type of life, human life, marked by autonomy, separation from its creators, containing conscious sentience (or once has but has lost autonomy), which, as far as I’m concerned, begins, in its true potentiality after birth. As the skin cells on our noses are surely “living”, they surely do not constitute a being with whom we cannot murder, in addition, the creation of a zygote between the gametes of a father and a mother surely are “living” in the technical sense, but not in the form of a citizen-agent with whom the government’s laws should be required to protect. We do not regard the individual gametes within an individual as individuals themselves with constitutional rights, and therefore charge people with murder anytime their expenditure doesn’t reach consummation, likewise, we cannot solely state the possibility of life which exists in potential form in any fetus or collection of cells within the human body, or at any other point within the unborn child’s development, ought to be under the purview of the government. While gametes contain the potential for life, and are, in themselves, living, we do not offer them protection under the law, and for good reason.

While the comparison to a consummated fetus is a stretch, the difference being substantial, the basic premise still stands. What we consider true potential for autonomy ought not be regarded until the moment of birth, and this, to me, is an opinion which I hold as the standard for justification legislatively. As far as it is it is part of the mother and father, yet residing and growing in the mother, we must consider it as part of the mother, as her other cells, organs, tissues, limbs, surely all are. While the possibility of life surely exists at the point of conception, just as the possibility of life exists in any healthy adult (in their gametes and genetic material), this doesn’t entail government oversight and restriction on the decisions of the individual. There surely is a lack of “selfhood” or experientially intuited autonomy in any form of being prior to being born, the creation is still being created, whether it contains conscious sentience or not. Conscious sentience here is important to the morality and time of abortion, but in the sphere of politics, it holds no sway over law. Here we enter into the moral dilemma.

Moral Perspective

In considering abortion from a moral perspective, all legislative and governmental purview are suspended, and bracketed, as surely existing but currently not applying. The moral question necessarily must be founded upon the wellbeing and suffering of life. Without life, there is no pain and suffering, there is no wellbeing, and there definitely isn’t consciousness of better or worse experiences. Without experience of some form which can undergo some form of better or worse states, there is not a moral question, as actions regarding them do not produce a better or worse subjective experience – pleasure nor pain, wellbeing nor suffering, growth nor decay. Where there are moral questions there are also right and wrong answers, per moral realism, which takes into account the wellbeing and suffering of the individual, and other life forms into their causal connectivity, in the present moment and across time. In this scenario, the potentiality for future experience, much like the potentiality of a murdered adult, is taken into account, in its connectedness and effect on the wellbeing of other sentient beings.

In the case of a mother’s life being at stake in the birth of the child, the mother and father are not morally culpable for the abortion of the unborn child, due to the guarantee of current life ending. The causal implications of someone with emotional ties and relationships is much greater than the amount of potential suffering caused to the unborn child in his abortion – in most cases. There are obvious outliers here, such as in the effect of malevolent psychopaths and the sort – the potential suffering is more directly intuited to be greater in their continued living than in our intuition of the potential their child may have in affecting greater or worse wellbeing / suffering in the world after they exist. Absent of all details and intricate factors of real pragmatic life, and the moral implications that are specific to the causal connectivity of a person’s existence and their continued existence, this is, in the abstract, a moral neutral position (to be determined by the actuality of the situation), to me, where the mother sacrificing herself for the baby, and the mother aborting the baby, stand on equal grounds – all other things considered.

Where a mother may lose her life if she continues with the childbirth, there does exist a moral realist answer to the implications of either choice. But given our lack of omniscience, we must claim that the decision, by the mother, and if she so chooses the fathers opinion to be of value than his plays into the decision as well – is on morally neutral grounds, it is neither good nor bad – the effect of such action will dictate its pragmatic utility, and the ability to see the opportunity cost would only lead our intuitions to a better or worse assessment in extreme cases. Current life or potential future life here are morally equal in the abstract realm, due to our inability to foresee the possible repercussions of the continued life of either “person”. In extreme cases the moral situation becomes clearer, such as in the authentic philanthropist or the psychopathic authoritarian tyrant. If we were to see the causal connectivity between the extended life of the mother or the potential life of the child, and weigh the improvement of wellbeing and reduction of suffering for themselves and other sentient beings across time, if we could accurately calculate this data, then a morally positive “right” answer could be attained. Seeing that we don’t have this, I posit the neutrality of the situation. The same guidelines hold for a fetus formed through parental abuse, drug induced intercourse, rape, or some other form of unwanted insemination. The results of the potentiality of life and its affects upon the mother and the ability for her to end the life of the unborn child, or not, and suffer henceforth (the child too may suffer such a conception story), are also unknown (as is the circle of influence stemming from either life’s potentiality), but a certain distinction is made here, between the continued life of two organisms.

While all beings will surely suffer in life, I reject full-heartedly the notion of anti-natalism, while acknowledging its philosophical position, I hold that the potentiality for healthy, conscious, human life, is something to be pursued and not something from which to shirk from in its institution to a world of suffering. I think the situations which call for a mother to abort, or not, and their continued life, are under individual moral standards, applying in degrees of “rightness” or “wrongness” in reference to each individual case. This is surely an opinionated standpoint, and while it may be vague in its abstract form, it is decisive in its individual manifestation – which represents the implicit complexity of every situation. As in the previous case, if all factors were calculable, we would have a correct moral answer to every situation, regardless of extremity – seeing as we do not, there is no simple general moral standpoint from which to view and judge any given situation. Therefore, we put the matter of abortion upon a moral spectrum, based upon the wisdom of the one perceiving, judging, or attempting to make such a decision. Better or worse case scenarios and their respective moral heights are to be regarded on an individual level, with an aim to the improvement of wellbeing. That being said, the wisdom to weigh the potential life and one’s own life, or when viewing another two lives, to weigh the morality of the decision made, is surely dependent upon the viewer’s ability to cognitively assess the situation, but where the potential for life is concerned, the judgmental scale always tips morally towards the advancement of life, regardless of the different situations which led to the conception of the baby.

While different scenarios fall upon a spectrum, the choice to abort a healthy unborn child, abstractly an in a “standard” situation (between two dedicated lovers, separated parents, or only the mother or father’s decision or choice to have a baby or raise a child once learned the mother is pregnant) falls entirely upon the “bad” end of the spectrum, to different degrees, depending on differing factors. In other words, I believe it to be morally good, right, or correct to preserve the life of a child, to differing degrees, depending on the circumstances and factors at play in the individual scenario. Likewise, I consider it morally wrong, bad, incorrect, to abort the life of an unborn child, also, to differing degrees based on the details of each distinctive situation. While I think it is morally “bad” to take plan B and thus end the potentiality for life, it is surely a moral “wrong” that can be forgiven, much like I hold that dietary veganism is morally superior to a carnivore diet, I hold the continued abstaining from veganism to be a moral “wrong” which warrants minute criticism, and thus minute judgment, or very small influence on the moral evaluation of another person or yourself. On the other end, the birthing of a baby born with severe cognitive issues, whose birth either kills the mother, or whose life leads to incalculable suffering, would still tell a morally “good” story in regards to the action of giving birth of life, and the sacrifice therein, yet I would not call it a wise choice, and apart from the action itself, must be considered abhorrent.

Virtue ethics now makes its essential contribution into our evaluation. The act itself of attempting to preserve life, without prior knowledge of harm to either party, and is founded upon virtuous intentions towards the proper upbringing of a child, warrants an act that is morally “right” or “good”. Yet, from a consequentialist perspective, we must calculate based on the repercussions of such an action. To me, the wise choice, given any situation, including that of abortion, is the prudent ability to decipher from which perspective to attempt to tackle the situation, from which standpoint to navigate. Do we attempt to act from the character we deem as virtuous, and if that values the continuance of life in the successive generation, act to fulfill what we value? Do we look towards a cost benefit analysis of future moral implications to ourselves, our circle of influence, and the potential world the child may engage with – and make a pragmatic assessment and assertion of optimality based on this rational factor analysis? Judgment of either method of interpretation is to take place under the meta-ethical framework of moral realism as dictated above. In this way the eye of wisdom is called upon in distinguishing the correct response to moral questions, and must be exercised with care, and separated from the actual inherent virtue of the act.

The totality of future suffering and wellbeing must be considered across the spectrum of sentience in order to calculate whether decisions should be made or not. Whether the act itself is good or bad holds little importance here in comparison to what the wise decision may be. To abort a potentiality unhealthy child, or one which is generally unwanted, accidental, due to malevolence, or other extreme factors, should be legally up to the parents, but if the parents are of age to deliver a healthy baby, with our current systems in place to take care of them I believe it to be “morally wrong” to take the potential life, or not become responsible for our actions through the proper revelation of our values in bringing up the child to maturity. I view it as our sacred duty and responsibility to pass down the knowledge we have acquired in successfully navigating life to the proceeding generation, as our forefathers have done for us – at least in the situations where it is the wisest choice to be made.

I still reserve the right for parents to abort the child in the germinal, embryonic, or fetal developmental phases as they see fit, for any reason. I can’t justify it morally upon the “right” or “virtuous” spectrum based within the virtue ethicist framework of the act itself, stripped away from circumstances. In the context of circumstantial factors, the moral playing field becomes considerably muddied, without sufficient foresight in predicting the future outcome, we must rely on experience, scientific data as it relates to the individual factors, and overall wisdom in discerning the optimality of carrying to term or abortion. The wisdom spectrum supersedes the practicality of an action, in all cases, and an honest interpretation of the factors at hand enables the philosopher to clearly view whether the “act” of abortion truly passes the wellbeing / suffering test, whether it is intuited as being pragmatically true as beneficial and useful in the decision to abort or not. That being said, any moral act does lie in degrees depending on circumstance along the spectrum of moral answers, from the most optimal and beneficial, to the most abhorrent.

Personal Perspective

Personally I will never choose to abort a healthy child, insofar as I have a say in the matter, and in the situation where the mother places the burden of choice upon me, at least at this point in my life. An unhealthy child, or one under other circumstances than what would be, in short, “optimal” as regards its potential conscious experience (sickness or other mental deficiencies), surely would call for an exercise in wisdom and communication with the mother in the choice. But, currently, along as the child and his mother are healthy, whether I’m in the requisite financial situation towards raising the child personally or not, I will opt towards the preservation, creation, and continuance of life, whether it be under my care or not, with, of course, the mother’s approval. While this is a personal stance, I would never seek to extend it to any other individual’s circumstances, nor seek to impose my standards which I apply strictly to the scenario of “my current life” in a legislative manner.

“What Your Mind Creates is Not to be Trusted”

On April 16, 2020July 8, 2020 By Chris ShuttleworthLeave a comment

Here I’m going to rephrase this truth claim as, “arising mental phenomena isn’t an accurate representation of reality”. Here’s why.

We here will be working from an idealist point of view, which itself can be factual if its conceptualization is properly articulated, and in doing so it asks of us to delimit certain caveats in order to fully express the intricacies of mental phenomena and their relation to the truth. We can only trust the content of our experience to the degree to which it is a representation of the truth, it always lies in relation to the truth. What the mind creates includes the totality of our experience, and is presupposed in the perception of scientific data, including its intention towards discovery, the application towards revelation, our intuiting the results, and the conclusionary remarks which stem from the scientific deduction of said results. The entire process is presupposing an understanding of the Being which we are, and of our perception system in its modification. The mental comprehension that is embodied through automatic intuition into the nature of phenomena is itself mediated by our perceptive system, it is not the actual experience of the content as it is in actuality. The only mental content which can be trusted as to accurately representing an aspect of reality, is mental content that concedes a framework of its manifestation in the conceptualization, or intuited pre-conceptual thought, which, I believe, isn’t explicit in a non-conceptual intuition or mental experience. The ability to conceptualize a framework which relates the infallibility of conclusive claims as to content as it is perceived, must contain some form of linguistic representation in order to make explicit that a framework is being operated within in the truth-claim of its content. For example, the mental phenomena which arises in conscious experience which has the content of non-exclusionary claims, such as the experiencing of the visual field, and intuits seeing an object as it is “in itself” doesn’t take into account the limiting ability of our visionary capacity to see the other characteristics which make up the object in itself, or the being which it is, the experience towards which the object is embedded within. In the making explicit of the caveats which course through such an experience, phenomenologically, we can create mental content that can be trusted to a higher degree than our initial intuitions. The recognition of the phenomena, explicitly, such as, “the experience of the gaze of conscious awareness towards the visual content as it is perceived by the being which I am, made an object appear to exist in a manner which oriented my being towards a certain making sense of the object in my intuition of what it is”. In this manner we recognize the experience from the perspective which it is embedded within, recognize the absence of the thing in itself, and properly frame mental content that is, itself, conceptual in nature, but a more accurate and trustworthy description of the mental phenomenon that occurred.

In our experience everything is presented into conscious awareness through the filter of the mind, tempered by an inherent value structure, and developed through internal representations of perceived content. It all is a representation of the actual phenomena in itself, not as it is perceived by our perceptive faculties, but as the faculties are modified in perceiving. The very presentation towards our embodied ability to receive sensory stimuli is modified in its uptaking as our organisms data set by a structure of evaluation in the perceive abilities. Secondly, the content which is perceived, which enters into the perceptual grasp of our embodied system, is itself modified by our value structure. This means, the content which is intuited as meaningful, is meaningful intuited after its uptaking into our orientation which is dependent on prior experience, genetic modification, our environment, learned instinctual response, and in turn we are naturally oriented towards a certain mode of being in relation to the digested datum which was perceived. Thirdly, the manner which we embody in relation to the perception and integration of our Being in relation to the perceived content, furthermore rarely makes its presence known to the gaze of conscious, and is filtered by the value system which we have developed (either covered, uncovered, consciously directed towards its development, or not) that “decides” if the content actually makes its way into conscious awareness. Fourthly, the content thus appearing, is itself filtered by the embodied system which is the totality of our Being, from a lower resolution image, by the very mode of being which is present in the acquisition of mental content in the moment of being consciously aware of it. One way or another, what we are seeing in our conscious gaze, that which arising in mental experience, that which is presented subjectively to us in our momentary awareness of the content in consciousness, has been modified multiple times, and the very system which lies at the basis of its modification, is itself limited in its scope and accuracy. Our biological organs which produce the initial inheritance of perceiving content is itself limited by necessity of evolved selection, and thus itself, in the first place, is not accurate, in totality, towards the actuality of the world as it is itself. What we react to is merely the trained response to the world as it is perceived, the world as we find it, as we are able to find it, in relation to ourselves, which are part of it. We act accordingly.

While this explains the process by which content is instantiated into the realm of consciousness, which our gaze can become aware of in its shifting from content to content, it also leads to the necessary formulation of created representations of embodied action and speech. IF the very content which we experience itself is only a fragment, or a piece, or a perspective, of the world as it truly is, how much more so is the representation of our being actualized in our speech and actions? We ought not trust the conceptualizations, the speech we utter, and if so, how much even more so ought we lack conviction towards the accuracy of representations of Being produced in the perception of interpersonal reactions? If the content of our own experience is heavily mediated before coming into conscious awareness, and the conceptualization, thoughts, ideas, speech, and actions, which henceforth are actualized, are themselves mediated by the structure of our Being which is wholly outside of our control, and wholly outside of what is most optimal, or what is most in-itself- the actuality of our being, how ought we to ever believe another person? We must solely conclude that we do the best we can, to the degree that we can, in understanding ourselves, in representing ourselves, in understanding reality, in representing reality, and conclude that the perception of others and our extrapolations of it as we perceive and analyze it, are the best intuitions we have to work with in relation to uncovering the actual truth. While these representations, often in the form of thoughts, intuitions, and conceptual descriptions, are fallible in their accuracy and are presupposing knowledge of our Being which, absent a clear phenomenological analysis, are wholly covered by what our conscious has been ingrained to relay to our conscious gaze, we can make use of that which is presented, and we can strive, to the degree we are able (based on experience, intellect, time, and competency), to move closer to an accurate representation of the truth, and an accurate representation of ourselves through authentic actions. While they always remain a degree removed from what is optimal, that which is produced by our understanding is the most optimal we have available to us in the given moment, the system of the totality of our Being which produces the content in the present moment, is necessarily the only thing we have, and it is, the best we currently have. The training, discipline, improvement, and optimization of perceptual systems, value structure uncovering and optimization which course through our experience, and the conscious directed skill and its actualization in concrete action and movement, speech, thought, etc. (Phenomenological Analysis of Conscious Direction, Value System Instantiation) all can be modified, the very being which we are, and its capabilities, can be modified. This modification can take place towards the goals and aims which we wish to actualize, for which we contain the potential of actualizing.

On the other hand, the accuracy of the internal representation which we experience in the moment, varies in degree to being more or less an accurate model of reality. The more knowledge and experience tempered by wisdom and insight, the more accurate representations we can “create”, or “arise as thoughts”, and the closer it is to the “truth” of the thing in itself, or the content of the idea as it actually is. We must merge both intellectualism and empiricism to a transcendental unity towards which the explaining of its characteristics are an entwinement of both systems of thought.

The arising mental formation stating “the content appearing in the mind, isn’t an accurate representation of reality” is itself a logically correct statement, and can be trusted. Mathematical and formal logical proofs, while arising in the mental gaze, themselves are infallible in being true, and can be trusted, for all intents and purposes (at least from our place in the universe where logic appears to be on solid ground – we cannot extrapolate to the totality of space and time, but merely can conclude in our corner of the universe it appears to be valid). But recognition of the temperance of our experience by the underlying cortical processing system is an insight which holds us to be fallible in our notions and ideas, which is truly beneficial for psychological growth and wellbeing, in moving us closer to the “truth” as well as – in Buddhist terminology – aiding us in removing delusion and keeping us in line with the dharmic universal truth of impermanence of phenomena.

Phenomenological Analysis of Conscious Direction

On April 10, 2020July 8, 2020 By Chris ShuttleworthLeave a comment

Here we wish to delineate the emergence of conscious direction in its initiating role of preceding action, for the purpose of automatic unconscious habit formations which reinforce the internal disposition towards further development. We start with the initial disposition of the individual, in whatever mode of being he has so acquired as constituting his present moment. Regardless of what the content of his consciousness may be, and regardless of his current psychological makeup, it is possible that a thought arises which leads to a bodily action, or to further thoughts, towards the emergence of emotion, or to a shift in his mode of being. This we define as conscious direction – that conscious forethought that appears to be causally related to our subsequent orientation in the world. This conscious direction appears as intuition, conscious will, a thought in which its intentionality is movement.

The movement which is intentioned by conscious direction is towards any aspect of the totality of our consciously experienced content. Sensory inputs of the visual, tactile, or auditory faculties can be directed to proceed the conscious direction, in such a manner that the proceeding perception is in alignment with the content of conscious direction. The thought may arise in conscious experience of “I will to feel the tactile sensation of my right foot”, this may come in the subjective experience of the conceptual linguistic form of thinking using language, as described, or may be a natural inclination within conscious experience, the mere thought that is pre-conceptual. We know it to be conscious direction by the will to movement, the movement is within the gaze of consciousness. The experiential subjective gaze moves from conscious awareness of the conscious directive, towards the apperception of the tactile sensation in the right foot, the integration of the awareness as conditioned by the perceptible faculty which factors out content of stimuli through the structure of our embodied being, becomes represented in the consciously experienced sensation. In this manner we experience the accomplishment of the conscious direction in its actualization.

In addition to mere consciously directed sensory awareness, and the movement which can manifest in our gaze from mere awareness of present mental content, towards the awareness of mental content which is manifesting in relation to a consciously directive command, there are other movements which can be directed by the conscious will. Like the movement of the gaze of conscious awareness, which, in order to be apprehended mindfully, necessarily requires the implementation of mindfulness during the successive moments proceeding the conscious formulation or realization of the directive, we also can direct movement in any other area that is able to be perceived consciously. This movement that proceeds conscious direction, and the content of the conscious direction, both are necessarily apprehended individually by conscious awareness. Without being consciously aware of the conscious direction, we necessarily are not performing conscious direction, the latter requires the former, yet the former does not require the latter, in order to be manifested in conscious experience or actualized in its application.

While there is a multitude of consciously perceived phenomena which can precede the emergence of further action occurring, here we are only interested in that content which can be acquired by an individual. Meaning – an emotion, or a perception, a memory, can all arise in consciousness in a fashion which directs his mode of being to shift, or which act as causal agents towards the production of additional events in the individual’s life. We are not here interested in external stimulus, only internal stimulus. External stimulus is here wholly out of our “control” in the sense that we cannot direct it within the present moment. What we can direct is the action which proceeds an event occurring which then acts as a stimulus which changes our mode of being or conscious experience. We must here strictly separate that which is internally produced, the act proceeding conscious “will” to instantiate the noema, from the external stimulus, or that which is perceived in embodied form and intuited bodily. We are interested in the experience of that intentioned content produced within the realm of our conscious awareness that subsequently produces action.

The content of conscious direction thus can be anything which we are able to be consciously aware of. Here, conscious awareness is defined as the subjective experience of the content of the present moment, what we are able to experience. While we are always experiencing the present, often the presents relationship to us – us being defined as that transient conscious awareness itself – is that of an unknown known, or something with which we have inherent knowledge of but in the present is unknown, or out of our gaze. Only when the gaze of consciousness is reflexively directed upon itself, when we become aware of our awareness and the content herein of the present moment, does the term I here am calling conscious awareness spring into play. Once we can become aware of our awareness, the ability to recognize conscious content in its relation to being a causal agent in the production of an effectively “produced” content becomes available to us. The use of the word free will here must be eradicated from thought if it so appears to be in relation to the description I am describing. The production of conscious awareness, and of conscious direction, is wholly the product itself of determinate conditions leading to its arising, the ability to do so, like any other mental phenomena, can be improved in its ability to manifest through habitualization, expressed experientially by repeated manifestation into conscious awareness.

As phenomenologically discovered, the intentionality of all consciousness must be recalled. All content of our experience is directed towards something, and the mode of being which we here are referencing as conscious direction is actually the noematic correlate to the underlying noetic content of intentionality. The conscious direction which interests us therefore isn’t the unconscious intentionality behind all human action, it is only the appearing content in experience which occurs before the next moment, it is the conscious causal link to the effect in the moment. While deterministic rules apply to the emergence of conscious direction, this conscious direction is unalterable by the many factors of existence, and being that it is the experience which precedes the next moment, and is all “we” truly have as experiential proof of our ability to choose and alter the world, it would be optimal for us to forge this directional capability to be in line with our values, goals, beliefs, in a way which is psychologically and physically beneficial for us in the next moment, reiterated over time, for us and those we care about. This realm of influence and intention behind the potential theorizing of a beneficial mode of being from which conscious direction can pervade, can be expanded to include as many factors as one wishes. One can look to optimize and alter the content of this conscious direction towards an intention of single-minded consent, toward a singular goal, towards personal psychological wellbeing, towards family relational growth, in effect, anything which stems from the will as worthy of pursuing.

Here a coherent system of values is optimal, so as to not enable our potential for conscious direction in the course of something we value to by hijacked by unconscious and immediate spontaneous pursuits which escape our mindfulness. By entering into a reactionary mode of being which is no longer mindful of the content of consciousness, we let loose the reigns of the psyche to operate in a natural, unmediated, subconsciously directed way. This isn’t negative or positive, as the state of our psyche and the totality of the being which we are, can, prior to the moment described, already be fine-tuned to our values, to a greater or lesser degree. The more time and effort and conscious formulation of rational goals, and habitualizing oneself to the pursuit of such goals, are some of the factors which will enable the spontaneous act of the will in an unmindful state to continue the pursual absent of conscious direction and the mindfulness which is aware of it. The contrary case is what we need to be wary of, in the not fine-tuned, unintegrated, un philosophically formulated valueless mind, the individual is prey to the whims of the will, rather than an orienting north star, and if they have meaningful pursuits which they would rather pursue, the necessary work in the realm of conscious habitualization and conceptualization, and practice, will temper the ability to pursue them.

Wellbeing requires pursuit of what’s meaningful. Pursuit of what’s meaningful requires a value structure. A rational value structure requires philosophical work. Philosophical work requires philosophical knowledge, rational capacity, intellect, effort, time, and experience. The experience of the individual, and his conscious recollection of it, limits the range of content which is available to be philosophically analyzed, thus limited the range of philosophical datum the individual has to work with in the optimization of the value structure (Value Structure Instantiation). Additional knowledge, both logical and experiential, will naturally expand the range of content from which the individual has to work with. The discovery of what is meaningful to one, thus must be uncovered, or created. Uncovered in the sense of an unknown known, as something which provides meaning to the individual’s life but goes unconsciously conceptualized in its relation to the individual, thus is inherent in his being but lacking applied mindfulness to it. Created in the sense of the application of conscious direction towards some pursuit, which creates the conscious conceptualization and attachment of the word “meaning” to that content. We naturally will find that anything our will is directed to has meaning to us, as we are always putting objects, rather physical or mental (idea, thought, experience), in relation to ourselves, and conceptualizing them in ways which makes sense to us. Thus every content of experience has a value and a meaning to us before we become conscious of it containing that meaning.

The very perceptional structure of our embodied being is fine tuned to a value system which has developed over the course of the development of the human genome, and has been modified since birth. This perceptible system necessarily runs in the present moment in its pre-conscious, pre-sentient, pre-directed, form which mediates the content perceived through a type of value structure, the content of which, and the characteristics of which, can be modified and altered by experience, including that which proceeds conscious direction. This perceptible system, I n its current state, is that which limits the range of conscious experience as it is directed to receiving a proceeding mental content in conscious experience, or in the actualization of embodied movement, including physical action, mode of being change, mental content change, and any movement which we are consciously able to be mindful of, or direct our being to be in accordance with. While the very content of conscious experience is mediated by this system, the intuitions, ideas, thoughts, or linguistic commands which arise in conscious awareness under the guise of conscious direction, are themselves the product the same embodied totality of our Being which gives rise to the instantiation not only of the mood, personality, mode of being, which courses through our conscious experience, but also is the manifestation of the content within the framework as well.

We are always acting with intention, out of desire, and the intentional object always holds a place of representation once it is conceptualized in the mental stream of conscious thought. The revelation, uncovering, or discovery of those contents, activity, systems, concepts, which hold the most meaning in relation to each other, in their total relation to us, is what we should seek to describe for our formulation of a value structure. The necessary interconnection between values, their place of priority, the discarding of lesser and the superseding of greater values must be carried out on an individual level, not only would it be useful to find what currently represents one’s values (based on time spent in pursual), but it is necessary for the optimization of conscious direction, our conscious experience, and thus our wellbeing, that we formulate what we would like for our value structure to be. What is an “ideal” value structure we wish to body.

With this “ideal” in mind we can further seek to optimize our time in proportion to this value structure. Thus the famous Jocko Willink maxim; discipline equals freedom. By disciplining our time and effort into those things which we most value, we are effectively exercising the freedom of the will to “choose” what its content is. A well-structured life which reflects the consciously formulated value system is far from being constraining, on the contrary, it constrains the pursuit of values which one doesn’t value, while providing the framework for a life which accurately reflects one’s values, providing the optimal structure which can be recalibrated with experience and further philosophical work towards improvement of the value system. By disciplining oneself to follow the consciously formulated values, we create the possibility of deeper pursual of what is meaningful to us.

With the value structure as our guiding star, conscious direction can be applied toward the content which is in alignment with what is meaningful to us. How are we to be confident in our pursual of such ventures? It is based on the work with which we have put in towards the description of values. If at any point we question our confidence in the path we are following, in the experience directed towards values, if it ever occurs to us that the path isn’t optimal, all we have to work with is the experiential knowledge and the philosophical application towards our conceptualization of values, and their relationship to each other in formulating a meaningful life. If this occurs, more work is to be done.

Intro to Psychological Classifications

On April 9, 2020July 8, 2020 By Chris ShuttleworthLeave a comment

Here I wish to make some remarks on the correct interpretation and usage of psychological classification methodologies, as the general application of them seems widely misused in their accepted revelations. The main examples which I have in mind to use for the purpose of interpretation are those of psychological personality tests, such as; the Meyers Briggs; the Big 5 personality tests as used by modern psychology; the archetypal constructions as proposed by Jung; the tripartite separate of personality as divided to their corresponding physical disposition as proposed by William Sheldon; and in general the medical diagnoses of someone’s “mental illness” or abnormal psychic state. While these I specifically have in mind, any classification system that seeks to delineate areas of emotional or experiential phenomena, or even modes of being, are all under scrutiny to be used in their respective proper formats, and here criticism and explanation of the method we should use to interpret them is discussed.

What frequently occurs after an individual receives a classification of their character is that they become identified with it and develop a belief structure that is modified and in alignment with said classification, at the exclusion of other diagnoses, and at the exclusion of being identified as lying upon a mutable spectrum in every regard of character trait. The individual receives, discovers, or intuits themselves as fitting into different categories, and through the identification, both consciously and unconsciously, doubles down on the path prescribed. The unconscious search for content in alignment with the description given to them promotes confirmation bias in the individual, strengthening the resolve upon a limiting description of their character. This methodology is reinforced by the intellectual belief that the defining of such a diagnosis is directly relatable and descriptive of their character. Due to the belief in such a self-grouping, the individual spreads the meme of the classification, in thought and speech, further reinforcing their belief and modifying their behavior in alignment with the diagnosis. People tend to not want to contradict themselves, and to remain consistent in their interactions with others, and through the statement of their description to other people, they seek to confirm their words through the manifestation of their actions, further solidifying the modified belief structure. I believe this to be a perversion of the data presented, and altogether promotes an suboptimal mode of self-description, that is, if the goal is towards not only a comprehensive understanding of one’s self, the “truth”, but additionally towards the individuals personal character growth, or “Ultimate Wisdom” (as described in previous content).

This acceptance of a diagnosis and further memetic reinforcement necessarily implies the transition from the always beneficial fallibilistic mode of being towards that “mode of Certainty” which is characterized by dogmatism and stagnation. Obviously this is an impediment we wish to remove, while on the other hand, we must accurately understand the usefulness of such classifications, and the way to interpret the findings in a way which we can use to foster a proper psychological development.

The mode of being fallible, and of the fact of irreducibility of our character to simplistic terms, is of paramount importance for the individual to integrate the totality of their psyche. While there is beauty and wit in the simple, the human psyche is merely too vast to be cut down by Occam’s Razor in a way which does justice to the variability and extensive complexity which makes it up. While words themselves cannot ever do infallible justice toward an accurate representation of the actuality of the psychological whole, they can more or less be used to conceptualize the reality in a way which is beneficial. The dogmatic adherence to a single diagnosis, mode of being, or applied psychological classification, must be henceforth disregarded.

To start from the fundamentals, the range of human experience, of human psychological makeup , and its displayed character traits, lies upon a spectrum of potentiality for every individual. Every individual lies upon a spectrum of anxiety manifestation, strength of will, sociability, intellect, virtue, extraversion, introversion, agreeableness, as well as in the proportion of the psyche which is dominated or affected by archetypal structures in the unconscious (to greater or less degree). Every metric which is regarded as being all-encompassing towards an individual’s character, as described by psychologists, is inherent in every individual to a varying degree. While this is more or less intellectually grasped when pointed out, it is rarely expounded as being universally valid, and is only referenced when it suits the individual to so do. Those who are towards the “extreme ends” of a certain psychological trait, in relation to the totality of individuals, are slapped with a diagnosis which is generally accepted, and in reference to areas of which little or no description is given, the actual trait goes unrealized and if consciously considered is disregarded as not applicable to the individual’s psychic makeup. A patient who is categorized as being low in trait openness may seek to respond to such a description through overcorrecting or by doubling down in the self-identification, but may simultaneously unconsciously ignore other areas of their character which may have a greater bearing on their psychological wellbeing, such as disagreeableness or self-conceit. We must be on guard against isolating the psyche to a unitary description lest we fail to optimize the totality.

Upon every area of human analysis, we lie upon a spectrum, in every regard. This complexity of intertwined variability across every psychological classification, and our potential for change within it, and our response to the current state we find ourselves in, is paramount to the optimization of the individuals wellbeing. The application of wisdom derived from experiential as well as acquired knowledge are the mitigating factors towards the management and optimization of one’s psychological state in response to the manifestation of underlying psychological traits. How well one receives the results, and under what individual belief structure and interpretation method one uses to analyze the results, will determine the individual’s response. This is obviously a more complex topic, but the gist of it can be deduced from what follows.

The usage of psychological classifications should be interpreted in the manner of disclosing information solely in relation to the framework one is analyzing, as being applicable only within that structure and not without or in an all-encompassing nature towards the totality of ones Being. For example, the classic introverted and extroverted distinction made by Jung seeks to delimit individuals into two clearly opposing groups. The problem is, every individual lies upon a spectrum of their past, current, and future relation to the description of the two terms, and can bounce between them as well as inhabit both on a regular basis. The classification of oneself as being an extrovert doesn’t mean one doesn’t have any inclination towards introversion, it merely means that the description of the word extrovert, as decided by the conductors of the psychological examination, and as the individual responds to what he believes to be an accurate representation of himself in the questionnaire, is what the test produces to be a good explanation in light of its collected datum, in relation to the average test participant. In addition, we must take into account that the system used to discern psychological traits are based on samples, so, we must take the information it gives in its correct context. If we are confronted with the result of being high in trait extroversion, it is referring to the fact that we are more extroverted than the average person who was included in the sample. Everyone has a degree of extroversion, and to state that we are “high in trait extroversion” necessarily entails that what we believe to be true responses about ourselves (answered in the questionnaire) points to the fact that we have higher than the average person’s trait extroversion, as it is defined by the psychological system, in relation to the sample size of people tested for the trait, based on the questions and their answers.

The necessary correlation of this to the truth of the matter is tempered in relation to the individuals understanding of the description, as well as his understanding of himself, which we know is unconsciously modified by inherent biases and preconceived notions, stemming from socio-cultural, environmental, and genetic pre determinations. The accurate analysis of oneself is an impossibly tricky thing to differentiate from what one would like to be an accurate description of themselves. This is the first logical issue one gets into in psychological examination and classification. Secondly, the subject is limited by the spectrums associated by the two terms, and in their overarching applications and general descriptions. The truth is we all could be extroverts in certain situations in life, introverts in others, dependent upon the situation we find ourselves in. We must recognize that the classification is only to be used in the sense of, for example: “I currently am operating under Jung’s conceptualization of introversion in his division between introversion and extroversion right now, because I believe my current situation is describable by his description of the term” (maybe you are abstractly thinking in the absence of social interaction, and enjoying it, and don’t want the company of others). Because you find yourself frequently in such a situation, doesn’t mean that the classification can be blanketed across your character, or that it is exhaustive in defining you, it strictly means exactly what it means – meaning – within the moment you see a likeliness to your own character in the description of whatever the questionnaire is asking (holds across all self-narratives), and the result is more or less pointing to high or low in the trait in relation to the average person tested. This holds true for any classification one may become interested in or be diagnosed by, whether it be a personality test or other divisions of the psyche into conceptual groups.

An honest examination of every descriptive conceptualization can be applied to any individual at some point in his life, or at least be recognized as a potentiality for him who is analyzing, if he is to be sincere and work towards the connection. One can spin any description to fit one’s conduct, and can see any human conceptualization in a way that is in alignment with one’s character, if one has the intellectual relational reasoning necessary to do so. Even if one can’t clearly see every personality description as being contained in their character, and claims boldly that this description truly represents them and these don’t, I believe upon further investigation he will discover that certain descriptions within the framework are merely more or less applicable to his character in the manifestations of his thought, speech and actions (which truly represent what we believe), and that this “more or less” implies that they all are descriptive of human nature which he himself contains, just certain ones become manifest to his conscious awareness more than others. Statistical probability and percentage of conscious occurrence play a role in the acceptance of descriptions, as that which more consciously enters into awareness becomes a more viable description than the altogether more accurate claim of ignorance.

This is the use of such classifications, the phenomenological examination of conceptualizations which are used as representations describing different modes of ones being, and using such concepts to denote specific changes and attributes of one’s mode of being. The optimal use is to not generalize a specific description as being applicable across all moments of time, but using them to comprehend and describe his present state as it so appears to him, within the framework of whatever system he is using. The description is only applicable within the system he is using to analyze his psyche. If one seeks to couple multiple systems, one creates a metasystem and that becomes the arena within which he is playing.

Groupings done by William Sheldon pose a serious problem to a truthful understanding of one’s physical state and its connection to stated “correlative” personality. His differentiation of three body types, endomorph, ectomorph, and mesomorph must be used under the interpretative framework I have described above, or the data would be misconstrued. There are no strict restrictions which define these terms in their actuality, but if we are to analyze ourselves using his method, it is possible for us to state that one description fits us currently more than the others, while simultaneously holding the view that it is a classification which isn’t stable and clear cut, it is merely a conceptual defining of our current state as being in alignment with one classification more so than another, in comparison to others, as he defines it, within that system. It doesn’t point to a truly scientific description in a way that is meaningful in an objective sense, it is merely useful in the game played within the rules he describes, not truthful other than in idealized form. The same holds for his corresponding psychological compositions which he says is in alignment with different body types. His description, in a nutshell, is between the skinny, large, and muscular, body types and their corresponding traits of cerebrotonia (predominance of intellectual over social and physical factors), viscerotonia (predominance of social), somatotonia (predominance of physical). The naturally skinny person is defined as being more intrinsically introverted and inclined towards intellectual dominance, abstract reasoning, social distancing and isolation, and have a high interest in privacy. The naturally larger person being defined by being desirous of sensual pleasures, love of people and sociability, enjoyment of family life, craving for affection and need of people when in trouble. The naturally muscular person is defined as having a more aggressive nature and desire for power over others, indifference towards pain, high desire for youth and a need for activity. Of course his descriptions are more exhaustive, but generally we can see how the underlying traits which may lead to the development of each body shape or of each personality traits, themselves, can be causally related to its correlate term. In other words, an underlying desire for power may make an individual to become more likely to become muscular, the underlying desire for sensual pleasure may lead the individual to eat more and become larger, in relation to others who lack the similar desire, the underlying desire for intellectual comprehension of the world may predispose the individual to be more likely than others to neglect of physicality and thus skinniness. Also, vice versa in conversant cases. Thus we can see the causal connection in underlying traits of the classifications, but in all cases every single correlation can be applied to any individual regardless of their current body shape or of their most domineering mental pattern. We cannot tell whether the correlation between interest and body type will manifest itself in an individual, here it is implied as merely a probable effect, but in all reality, it is entirely possible for such interests to produce the opposite corresponding manifestations in actions than he described. The desire for power can produce introversion, and all other combinations are possible. The ability to change or to be defined by any of these drives / physical appearances is necessarily contained in every individual, albeit to differing degrees and likelihood of present manifestation. While these descriptions one may automatically intuit as applying to them, in their desire to mentally connect the two descriptions to their own disposition, it is absolutely a hindrance, and impediment, and an illusion or trick of the mind to exclude oneself from the ulterior psychological descriptions and personalities. It is useful to see how the groove created by a psychological state can be a beneficial pathway towards the higher probability of development of a body type, and the exploration of the causal effectiveness in psychological states and their relation to the ability to manifest actions in accordance with those states is surely something interesting, but as far as denoting the essential characteristics of our psyche, every one of these different modes of being lies within every one of us as potentialities. The degree to which the groove produces the correlated action is merely predicated upon intuitional and potentially statistical variance, it is not universally valid or immutable, it is actually quite limiting and can be easily memetically reiterated as a thought pattern which melds the psyche to its description. This is the error we must be on guard against proliferating, we must be careful which content we choose to believe, spread, and act in accordance with, lest unconscious deceptive forces become prevalent.

In the same way we should view the psyche as a whole. It isn’t beneficial to be defined by one description within one form of classification, when we can bracket our personality and psychic makeup in a million different ways. It is beneficial to see the causal relation between modes of being and their effects upon our lives, and what is more probable to produce certain content, so that we can direct our beings into the grooves which we consciously believe would be beneficial to us. In receiving information about our psychological makeup, as compared to the average person, we can utilize the information to better understand ourselves, but we must be framing the results and our place in relation to them in the proper brackets. Certain occupations, relationships, ways of spending time, and interests, can be gleamed through the results of psychological testing, proving applicable to many areas of our lives, but the necessary caveats must be conceded. What presupposes any test, and the data from which it draws, is the belief of a general understanding of ourselves in the first place. Thus, through understanding ourselves, in accurately representing ourselves when being tested, we learn how our psychological makeup compares to others, thus enabling us to better understand our self in relation to the society from which the data is taken. This context, and the accuracy of our representation, will determine the accuracy of the results. So in a way, how we understand ourselves, in the first place, is the crucial factor towards how we understand the results, and thus how we understand ourselves. This seems paradoxical, and potential deceptive, but, if we are to authentically represent ourselves, the results can be utilized in the aforementioned ways.

We want to get the clearest view of ourselves, and to do so we must remain in a state of fallibility and openness to variability in our self-narrating, as the trickle-down effect is vast and its implications will affect our wellbeing and further development. If we are to make a simple approximation of classifications than we should maintain the defining of ourselves as a complex system of overlapping and intertwined modes of being and character traits, without further specification, which would only muddy the clear waters from which we ought to remain content in. Others can deduce what they will in their judgment of us in our speech and actions, and we may choose the narration for which to follow, but we must maintain a diligent striving for such descriptions to be in accordance with the objective truth. We must be honest towards our potentialities, and we must be wise in the discerning of beneficial modes of being in which to inhabit, as they truly define our conscious experience of life and thus our wellbeing.

On a side note – there’s room for extrapolation into overlying modes of being in reference to merging layers of classifications and how they manifest cooperatively. For example, an extroverted or introverted Hero archetype dominating the psyche, or a high in trait openness individual with a dominating trickster archetype. There’s much room for psychological extrapolation upon the emergence of novel classifications between each other and between older groupings. This would be beneficial to the whole psychological community in denoting how to navigate or aide a patient that can be characterized in these ways, as well as individually if you find yourself manifesting actions which are in line with a specific formulation, and also in describing the optimal integration of the psyche from these very different starting points which we may find ourselves in. While certain actions, patterns, habits, predispose us to certain modes of being, and certain classifications, certain combinations within different systems of analysis, in conjuncture with each other, if carried out authentically, can provide novel insights into the phenomenology of our Beings. Are these tests more accurate than psychotherapy? From introspective analysis? From a phenomenological analysis of our own Being? From the description of our personality from a close friend or loved one? The answer doesn’t necessary matter. But all this content, all these pathways of inquiry, can provide a more holistic view of ourselves, and what we need to work on to become who we wish to be, in relation to who we are, and also, to provide into formation to be utilized in the pursuit of best navigating our experience on the road to that highest ideal potentiality which we are striving for.

Psychological Exposure and Discipline Therapy

On April 6, 2020November 2, 2020 By Chris ShuttleworthLeave a comment

In order to utilize exposure therapy for psychological growth, it is necessary to first establish the psychological preconditions for such an endeavor. The conscious awareness of a present fear is a necessary first condition. In retrospective analysis of a trigger which springs into effect a period or momentary heightened emotional sensitivity, we can recognize the content of that which our psyche has unintegrated. This content can be of something which is purely mental, such as a memory, thought, emotion, perception, or it can be of a sensual, external stimulus. In regards to the content which illicit the extreme emotional response, it is crucial to use judgment that improves with practical wisdom in how to psychologically condition the mind towards an appropriate response.

Our value system proves to be entwined with the decisions we make in regards to the furthering of our psychological wellbeing. If we find the content to be producing a negative, fearful, “unable to deal with” or “aversive” type of conditioned response, further exposure, and in all honesty, direct apprehension and knowledge of such content, will condition our minds to be accustomed to it. It is frequently observed that that which strikes the most fear into a man’s heart is that which he doesn’t understand, the unknown, or the misunderstood. It is through understanding, through knowing, and seeing himself overcome it, that he conditions his automatic system to no longer have the same extreme response to the stimuli. Once you have come to know what you’re afraid of, and “stood up to it” in deliberate confrontation, whether it be physical or mental, in looking where you least want to look, and going where you least want to go, psychological resilience to the stressors and in turn total psychological integration ensues.

As to contents which produce an extremely positive, hopeful, or altogether unmitigated source of pleasure, such as in addictive substances, or habitual tendencies striving after pleasure, which afterward produce a craving, a longing, or a discontent psychological state in the absence of such content, an opposite reaction to exposure therapy would be optimal to the psychological development of the individual. This doesn’t mean abstinence in regards to pleasure, but rather the ability to be content in its absence, the self-independence that is necessary for personal growth, through the knowledge and conditioned response of being content with nothing. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t strive for things, or that we shouldn’t desire or wish for things to be otherwise. It does require a great deal of wisdom and experiential understanding to distinguish which type of content would fall into this category, but psychologically lacking wellbeing after the absence of an emotional stimulating content could be an early indicator. In such cases a measured and consciously deliberate restraining of indulgence is necessary to come into the most beneficial relationship between yourself and that content. Once little separation is made, a less biased analysis of the content which produced such a reaction can be made, as the dopamine reward system becomes less inclined towards its pursual. The disciplining of the heart, mind, and body, towards the end of ultimate psychological integration in regards to both ends of the spectrum, is necessary for individual growth in competency and overall “Wisdom”. Being in the correct relationship to the things which overstimulated the psyche in producing an emotional reaction allows us to ground our decisions and how we spend our time, and what we avoid, based on a clear, rational – tempered through experience – mode of being.

Phenomenology of the Spiritual Mode of Being

On March 27, 2020June 30, 2020 By Chris ShuttleworthLeave a comment

Here we turn our conscious gaze to the mode of being I will classify as the “Spiritual Mode of Being”. This is a general noesis, or mode of being, which encapsulates different types of intentional action and their correlated ability to be consciously experienced, such as perceiving, thinking, feeling, speaking, and acting. It is general in that its components comprise distinct areas of intentioned activity, themselves classifying specific fragments of the totality of the mode of being. The Spiritual mode of being is the change in ones Being to one in which all areas of intention are modified by the noesis itself, in a way which is specific to the noesis. The way in which experience and intentioned action (all mental phenomena) are modified is thus the purpose of our inquiry. Being that we are to proceed down phenomenological lines, we must suspend all typical “natural” viewpoints, with an eye to the transcendental, or that which supersedes or courses throughout all experience. We here are looking for the essential characters of the noesis thus described as “Spiritual”, to be derived from analysis in its link between its constituent offspring, which is the subjective datum acquired through present moment awareness (Vipassana). This attentional factor of the mode of being must be presently applied whilst one is within the mode of Spiritual Being in order to accumulate data in respect to the field of consciousness which it indicates. This datum is to be retrospectively analyzed phenomenologically and expounded in its differences from the “natural” mode of being, as well as its essential characteristics delimited and isolated.

It appears from the start that this Spiritual Mode of Being is itself modified and conditioned through individually acquired knowledge; experiential, habitual, learned, as well as modified by genetically disposed character traits. So our path early on brings us to a dual exploration. My subjectively defined individual conception and phenomenological analysis into the contents present herein (my experience is all I have to work from) and the objective phenomenological essence of the mode of Being in its general application within the intersubjective realm, derived from reducing my personal experience to its fundamental features.

One, what is the most optimal, effective, beneficial – Spiritual Mode of Being, as it appears to me. This “optimal” being presents itself as characterized from the moral realist perspective, as that which produces the most “well-being” to the individual, his family, community, country, humankind, all life, both in the present, with implications for the short term and long term. Thus, present and future, across the individual and all life, are all morally implicated in my defining of “optimal”. Here “well-being” doesn’t imply merely escape from suffering, but may entail suffering with a silver lining (tough love), though, all factors considered, produces intentioned action which is most beneficial across the spectrum to psychological growth, character growth, communal freedom from suffering, etc. To me it appears in a pragmatic sense that the most optimal Spiritual Mode of Being is thus strictly a pursuance of this abstract conceptualization of the highest “optimal” ideal Spiritual Mode of Being, as, for practical purposes, my very conception of the most “optimal” mode of Being spiritual, itself is synonyms with Perfect Wisdom, or the best mode of Being one can act from. Given the complications in this, the most one can do is strive, from this personally spiritual mode of being, towards the attainment of the most optimal mode of Being, the characteristics of which would be modified with the further acquisition of knowledge, experience, and intuition.

While cultural and religious perennial similarities present themselves as Unity with the “One” in the forfeiting of the individual for a “higher ideal” such as Atman, Buddha, God, Jesus, Yahweh, Allah, what we find in secular spiritual instances is a similar pursuant of an all-encompassing “truth” and “oneness” or feeling of inseparability from the universe as a whole. In other instances, the individual may enter the Spiritual Mode of Being by attempting to become the ideal improved potentiality of himself, the contents which constitutes this improved potentiality reflected in the individual’s ideal. While pursuance of metaphysical, supernatural, secular, ethical, self-realization, truth-seeking, or generally transcendent understanding and alignment may all constitute the momentary ideal with which we are striving towards as an ideal within any individual’s experience of the Spiritual Mode of Being, the particular instances here serve only as a verification as an endpoint to the manifestation of the necessary essence which constitutes the generalized conceptualization of the Spiritual Mode of Being.

What this generally described as “Spiritual Mode of Being” from which I believe we should enter in order to pursue this “optimal” mode of being, is, is what we next will seek to find. What the objective essence of such a noesis is, and what is its objective, intersubjective discoverable characteristics are. In any act constituting the experiential neomatic content (the content of intention in the presently arising subjective experience) the Being of the “individual” is directed toward an object. In entering into the spiritual mode of being you are putting your Being in relation to an “object” which is other than itself. This object of intention, whether consciously realized or unconsciously manifested from, is in the Spiritual Mode of Being conceptualized as an ideal which is higher than the ideal of one’s current self-conceptualization. Whether that ideal itself constitutes an Abstract Being, a thought about morality, a metaphysical truth, or a wish for an ideal future is aside from the generality which we seek to uncover here.

This grounding of the mode of being in intentionality towards an object other than oneself which has this nature of being “higher” “greater” “better” “true” is always an abstract conception, if it were a scientific or otherwise “naturally” expressive content it would not relate to the Spiritual Mode of Being, but to an altogether different Mode of Being. The very nature of this Spiritual Mode of Being is in the transcendence of the ideal towards which Being is directed upon. This ideal is rarely consciously conceptualized in its totality, and always has subconscious and causally integrated roots below the conscious psyche, yet exists as a content which can be consciously symbolized, as well as consciously directed. This generalization of the fundamental generality of the mode of Being holds cross culturally, intersubjectively. In other words, it is produced through the alignment with one’s own Being with the abstract idea of a Being greater than oneself.

This abstract idea of a Being greater than oneself is always doxic, or grounded upon what one believes to be greater than oneself. The individual difference here will appear upon introspection directed phenomenologically across our varying ideals, whether it’s a God, the possibility of a greater character, or the moral realist striving for the height of wisdom. Of course there will be multiple “ideas” (Kantian sense, including thoughts, mental pictures, abstract representation, etc.) which one intellectually can devise as being greater than oneself, the alignment in pursuance or pursuance of unification with the idea as characterizing one’s mode of Being, is what here delimit the mode of being Spiritual. The possibility of variance of “idea” (in any individual) here pursued enables multiple “Spiritual Modes of Being” to be possibly manifest in the individual, but necessarily and experientially, all are contained within a unitary noesis in its producing the present moments intentioned actions. In other words, one individual may possibly enter into a Spiritual Mode of Being today which is altogether different from the one he enters tomorrow, or 5 years ago, depending on the idea for which he currently desires to pursue as that which represents the abstract being greater than himself. In addition, multiple ideas of such a Being greater than oneself can all be present in a connected formulation of one’s present Spiritual Mode of Being. Either one, or multiple, abstract objects for which we strive to be in alignment with can constitute a singular momentary Spiritual Mode of Being, often causing dissonance and the inability to successfully manifest an authentic representation of oneself in actions stemming from such a noesis (there is difficulty in consciously directing one’s actions to be in alignment with simultaneous content, especially if it isn’t articulated clearly).

The generalized essence of the Spiritual Mode of Being is thus here objectified. It is the mode from which one’s being attempts to align itself with an idea of a being greater than oneself. The object perceived in the subjective experiential noema (the perceived as experienced) produced from the noesis thus described is modified in accordance with the individual’s knowledge of what the abstract idea represents, as well as his trained ability to act in accordance with such knowledge. Thus, concentrated conscious effort directed towards attaining this Spiritual Mode of Being, which is itself is directed toward a “singular” idea, enables the practitioner to further be able to better manifest intentioned actions in accordance with the conscious idea, based on his practice within such a space of consciousness, his acquired knowledge, and time spent within such a mode of being. Unconscious entrance, tempered through habit and subconscious causal correlates, into a Spiritual Mode of Being, will, likewise, increase the ability for such a mode of being to manifest, as well as “carry along” the individual in his (Hiedeggerian) “thrownness” towards the ends of the unconsciously pursued ideal. This, to me, is sub-optimal, and I believe that our Mode of Being and its pursuance are better served by a consciously formulated idea, based upon rationally and logically coherent meaning and value structures which are explicitly defined and desired consciously by the individual. The unconscious adherence to dogmatic infallible claims, seek to halt growth towards a higher resolution image of metaphysical and moral “truth”, the use of a consciously conceptualized fallibilist yet clearly defined idea to be pursued in the Spiritual Mode of Being can help us to achieve progress towards such strivings. Diligent discipline towards not only attainment of the spiritual mode of being, but in addition towards the expansion of knowledge towards the idea within the mode of being, better enables the individual to produce a conscious experience (action, perception, mental formation, etc.) which is representative of the idea one is striving for.

The ability and manifestation of introspection is modified in important ways depending on what one’s individual acquired idea happens to be, and the Spiritual Mode of Being in its tendency to produce awareness of the present moment is directly related to what that idea is in its content. Ideals altogether lacking an importance of attention upon the present moment necessarily produce conscious experience with which we are not aware of in the present moment. Conscious clarity in reference to the idea necessarily produces an ability for the unconscious as well as consciously directed manifestations produced through the noesis of the Spiritual Mode of Being to be more or less in alignment with the idea.

As far as the entrance to a mode of being which is contrary to the Spiritual, in order to modify it so that it too is in alignment with one’s belief and value structure, seems to be a mode of being which falls within the domain of the spiritual itself, it is a subsystem located within the totality of the optimal spiritual mode of being. To pursue different aspects of ones Being, whether it be relational, moral, metaphysical, yet in alignment with the Spiritual Ideal, is to necessarily be within the totality of the Spiritual Mode of Being’s modification, and poses an overlay of content and influence. We cannot separate our this integral mode of being as easily as we would like from the totality of our Being, like our perceptive and embodied systems, it is integrally connected to all other subsystems.

Many aspects of our conscious experience are thus related as fragments of the totality of the spiritual mode of Being, the metaphysical truth pursuance, ethical embodiment, our interactions in relationships, are all noetic content which could possibly be derivative from the totality of the Spiritual Mode of Being, and effort towards their improvement, or increased articulation of what is meant in their “optimization” necessarily will alter the totality of the Spiritual Mode of Being, while simultaneously, modifications of the Totality bring modifications of the fragments noematic content produced. This relational modification can furthermore be extrapolated to the Totality of Being and its mode of Beings thus constituting our noesis in their ever fluctuating arising, in the same manner, and vice versa.

The modifications of our ideal, produce modifications in the thoughts, actions, feelings, and circumstantial reactions we experience. In addition, the flux of each of these constitutive experiential moments, has an effect upon the totality. The change of the whole influences the change of the constituent elements, and the change of the constituent elements are inexorably connected to the whole, and therefore to each other. The modification in any of these domains, which necessarily experientially takes place as the impermanence of time correlates to the impermanence in mental content, produces a modification in all other domains, in all other higher or lower mental states. Lower being closer to the real experience, and higher being more abstract foundational essences. As the Spiritual Mode of Being is that which aims at transcendence of the normal mode of Being, or of our current actualized state, it often produces feelings, thoughts, and actions which are wholly unique to it, not necessarily unique in their manifestations, but unique in their intentionality. While we can do one thing for many reasons, the reasons why we perform any intentioned act within the Spiritual Mode of Being are directed correlated to the ideal which we doxically hold as the imperative of pursuance corresponding to the Specific form of the Spiritual Mode of Being we find ourselves in. Mindful recognition of the unique manifestations which arise from these intentions can aide the ignorant phenomenologist in determining from which ideal or ideals are currently underlying the content of his experiences.

Through determined effort in reducing from the specific to the general, in the stripping away of the manifestations to their abstract correlates, and the unity between the various datum, the individual working at discovering his content can uncover the abstract conceptualization of his most profound beliefs. In the practice here described, the individual can subsequently look to verify the precision and alignment of such an ideal to the non-transcendental, or “natural” viewpoint. This is a practice which is altogether unnecessary, yet I believe, personally, is beneficial. By being able to believe in the logical coherence between one’s consciously discovered/formulated higher ideal and reality, one becomes more certain and thus modifies his mode of being in a way which is beneficial. This certainty itself, I believe, should not be a dogmatic certainty, but the ideal we are certain of should contain the possibility of fallibility, the ability to change with time, as an integral part of its conceptualization. The certainty of such a belief places the individual in a place of potential growth in regards to his progress towards the ideal underlying the Spiritual Mode of Being, which, given the impermanence and thrownness of our experience, we may be thrust into at any moment, yet is possible for its content and actualization to be modified consciously (to a degree).

t is through the conscious alignment with that personalized “divine”, “transcendent”, “immanent”, ideal that we can make progress within the Spiritual Mode of Being towards an end we are both intellectually and intuitively manifesting as well as aware of.

Phenomenological Analysis of Vipassana Meditation Noema

On March 24, 2020June 30, 2020 By Chris Shuttleworth1 Comment

While mindfulness requires diligent effort towards directing the gaze of conscious awareness towards the content of the present moment arising in consciousness, a phenomenological analysis requires much more psychologically rooted tools to perform at a truth revealing level (optimal/accurate/useful in degrees). While we can acquire the benefits of mindfulness through attention to the present, the requirements for a phenomenological analysis require intellectual clarity, knowledge of various scientific disciplines, non-contradictory logical reasoning, causal intuition, time and diligence directed by the mental gaze towards an authentic unravelling of the structure of the psyche, in short they require the ability to concentrate and pursue abstract correlates in their relation to the manifest contents discovered in mindfulness. This necessarily entails work, time, and discipline if one is to uncover the essential foundations for the noeses from which the noema (Husserl’s Terminology) are correlated and initially perceived as inextricably connected.

I wish to pursue the meaning, the noeses, the mode of Being, and its essential attributes for an experiential noema of, namely: entering into a Vipassana present moment meditation (Basic Vipassana Meditation). Now, first and foremost, I must recognize that the experience is of a specific differentiated nature, meaning, that I recognize my transition into a mode of awareness directed upon the present moment which is distinctly different from the previous mode of being, for which I conceptualize in my phenomenological analysis as an experience of mindfulness meditation. The goal for me, here, is to recognize the essence of the mode of Being which enabled and embodied such a subjective experience, and to uncover why.

First I analyze the situation for what it is, through recollection in memory and reflection upon the experiential content. Once I have clearly in mind the content I was experiencing in conscious awareness at the time of the period of mindfulness, I can circumnavigate the experience to get a clear view of the noema with which we are interested in attaining the correlated noesis. The multiple perspective exploration which ensues is the part of the work we must undergo to get a clear and authentic representation of the content. Here a reliance on clear, judgmental, unbiased memory is a preferred indifferent to us, as certain acts of reflection we may be unable to untangle from the truth of the matter. It is preferred in that it directly relates to an optimal outcome, and indifferent in that we recognize that the ability to do so is inherent in our intellectual capacities, and may…unfortunately…be out of our control in the time being, yet ultimately able to be improved through persistence and experience in performing phenomenological analyses, as well as with the increase of wisdom and knowledge in related mental faculties (logic / reason / intellectual concentration). To be able to perform such an endeavor we must “bracket” the “natural world” as described by Husserl, the degree to which we are able to separate the influence of a natural standpoint, or the unmindful mode of being, is crucial to the accuracy of the conclusion acquired. The amount of clarity in our recollection, and the resistance to any narrating and “Ego” driven defining of the content of the noema enable us to better or worse produce a clear, more accurate phenomenological result.

With the noema defined and held in our conscious gaze, that of the Vipassana mediation experience, we probe into our intuition to disclose what the intentionality of the acts performed in the noema are stemming from, or how the noematic content relates to the noetic content, their connection and formulation. For what purpose did we pursue such activity? From what mode of Being did it stem from? Why would we spend time doing such an act? Obviously the answer to these questions are differentiated in response to the individual, his circumstances, and the specific noema in space and time in which we are analyzing. Thus, my uncovering of the phenomena of mindfulness is related to this singular experience, and the work put in is towards the end in direct regard to that singular experience. The results therefore disclose information related to that mode of being intuited as being preliminary and underlying to the noema, but, also, they disclose a possible mode of being which can generally be stated as being able to manifest across the realm of future experience. While we discover the noesis of that singular noema in the analysis, we recognize it as an integral part of our psyche, and thus as having the potential of emerging again as a correlate to any future experience, and more specifically to acts of similar nature to the one inquired upon.

The intentionality in the case described is personally intuited in conceptualizations (word representations of “real” phenomena) based upon our acquired total synthesis of Being, containing specific knowledge with which the individual utilizes in his description and exploration of the phenomenological correlates to the experience. Language and its epistemology in regards to the individual is therefore an important aspect of any abstraction. Different perspectives and explanations are possible as being uncovered, as all being parts of the whole correlated explanation of the mode of Being relevant. Thus, we can expect always a partial conclusion, as the limit of knowledge and the kind of representation used (definition of words used in conceptualization is varied according to the individual). In my personal case I concluded, after work towards unravelling, a number of intuitions which may partially constitute the nature of the noeses underlying the phenomena of Vipassana meditation, in its manifestation and presentation in memory discovered by myself. The implications of such findings, and their relevancy towards further explanation across multiple disciplines, is later to be expounded upon.

I here wish to expound my personal findings to explore what I found, the implications, again, will later be preliminarily sketched out. In looking towards the intention I intuited that a mode of being of intentionality was prevalent throughout the experience. The conscious thought arose in which directed my being towards actualizing a mindfulness practice, and thus I habitually followed previous attempts at actualizing a Vipassana mediation, as I have up to this point acquired. The sitting still, eyes closed, and directing of the gaze into the present moment followed this consciously directed thought of wishing to perform a Vipassana meditation. Attention was focused upon the fleeting, transient contents of consciousness as it presented an awareness of perceptions of sensations and sensory content such as hearing, bodily pressure upon the chair, thoughts used in describing the present, attention brought to non-conceptually arising observation of the breath, sounds, feeling. I witnessed thoughts appear, I witnessed attention change. In retrospect there was always a content to which I could possibly be attentive to, although for brief moments my initial intention of pursuing a constant awareness of the present moment (a general guideline for Vipassana) was broken by forgetfulness of the practice as a thought or mental formation hindered my remembrance of the practice, but eventually was brought back to the attention upon the task at hand of being mindful. The variation in the content of consciousness in pursuing itself, varied in accuracy as it drifted between the awareness of the present, and non-awareness of its own content. These two poles make up a general description of the noema from start (that of entering into the mode of being) to end (that of exiting the mode of being and transitioning to a phenomenological analysis of the noema which had passed). The noema has been roughly, simply, conceptualized.

As there was a content connected to consciousness, there is a content of the underlying mode of being, the noesis, to that noema. Where consciousness was intent on pursuing Vipassana meditation, why was it pursuing Vipassana meditation? The answer lies in a multitude of phenomenological reasons relating to the nature of the mode of being which so desires such an experience (Phenomenology of Desire). This desire we will later expound upon. Several I will here explore as being uncovered in intuitional analyses. The mode of being is characterized by a will for character development, for becoming a better person, embodying the virtues with which to act upon in an optimal way for said character development. Upon investigation I discovered that from a doxological perspective (of my inherent intellectual belief structure) that I believe the pursuit of mindfulness to be relating and influential towards the goal of the improvement of character. Thus, part of the noetic content making up the whole noesis isn’t only of intentionality constitution, but also of doxic positionality (my Being’s relation to what I believe). I, through whatever reason (a causal chain of connectivity leads to our current belief structure), also hold as high in my meaning structure, or value hierarchy, the pursuit of character development (probably a conceptually acquired content stemming from content such as experiential knowledge and practical evaluation of Aristotle’s Nichomechean Ethics). Thus, the mode of being described as character development has revealed itself as containing noetic content of intentionality, doxic positionality (my relation to my beliefs), and value pursuit (my pursuit of a value which I have personally acquired as something hierarchical more important to me than other experiences). The result of such content in experience being the actualization of the underlying desire for character development manifest in the Vipassana meditation noema which I experienced.

Now we look to analyze why I contain such a doxic, value, and intentional structure. While the noema, the experience itself, is put into the highest position of concreteness, a relation to the recollection in the awareness of the memory of the experience would be in the second order of concreteness (it loses something of the initial concrete experience in the conceptual and mental formation), and in the third dimension of abstraction we have intuited the noetic structure which we believe to underlie the initial 1st dimension experience based upon the 2nd dimension experience (of recollection). The 3rd dimensional conceptual abstraction defines parts of the contents of the noesis available to us through the 2nd dimension and is itself able to be subject to phenomenological analyses, just as much as any other noema. But that’s a side note just to convey two things, namely, that each step in the phenomenological analyses is itself a moment which can be phenomenologically analyzed in its own noematic content, and also from that to conclude that the limit of content available to be phenomenologically analyzed is thus limitless in extension.

Continuing down our analysis we enter a 4th dimension of analysis, as to what purpose the noesis, the mode of being, which contains (in our partial exploration) the content of the underlying mode of being producing the noema, is itself produced by. To this we must enter into much broader and more profound territory, the full exploration of requires much scientific insight, and the space of which is open to further investigation in the fields of sociology, evolutionary biology, formal biology, psychology, and philosophy. As Merleau Ponty points out, there are many senses to which a phenomenon gives, multiple significant attributes that are interrelated and constituting of the phenomenon, many interrelated perspectives from which to gaze upon it, all of which simultaneously constitute the phenomena, yet we can find, that some give a broader defining of its characteristics than others do, although, in actuality, they cannot be separated. On a basic level it is an automatic habitual intuition, for me, to explain the noetic content thus described in evolutionary biological terms. Underlying all intentionality and modes of being, and in their modification, and their discovered content, is a persistent desire on behalf of the organism which I find myself as (Dasein (thrown)), as well as the genetic makeup, to “desire” (in affect) to preserve itself, recreate itself, and accurately recreate itself. By desire here in quotations we are referring to the biological correlate of the anthropomorphic sense of desire and its synonymous connotation of “willing/wanting/striving”, which, in effect, is attempting to achieve something. While we can view acquisition of character traits and thus modes of being underlying them in part to society, culture, past experience, the circumstances, time; I initially look towards the concrete and most fundamental underlying substratum for my personal exploration of this 4th dimension. This biological “desire” evolutionarily is beneficial in its manifestation in the mode of being of character development in that, (I believe), through making myself a better person I can better navigate existence (insight into nature of reality through Vipassana), enabling me to become a stronger, wiser individual (in my reduction of suffering and improving of wellbeing). This biological “desire” underlying the manifestation of the mode of being of character development also simultaneously allows the individual to be better able to avoid death, sickness, injury, in short, that which is contrary to the continuation of my genetic material, and necessarily the individual with which I am. The preservation and safety of the genome is thus satisfied in this explanation. Also, the second characteristic of genetic “purpose”, the procreation and replication of the genetic material, find their explanation in the noema and its coinciding noesis. By embodying what the individual believes to be character enhancing he is simultaneously embarking to become a more viable candidate for procreation, in thus manifesting the mode of being previously described, the individual (in my case unconsciously, yet consciously uncovered) “believes” (proof through action) in the pursuit of such activities which are produced by a character development mode of being, as being themselves tools towards character development and thus to the replication of his genes. This satisfies the second requirement in the biological imperative.

This rudimentary exploration towards the phenomenological underpinnings of a specific noematic experience is far from conclusive, but has provided information towards which I can use to understand how and why and from what mode of being the content of my experience is possible to be originating in. The conscious pursuit of ever more accurate descriptions of such a nature, indeed the meaning as to why the entire phenomenological investigation can be performed, is found in the insights gleaned by our own self-examination and realization, as well as has its utilization in the various scientific fields; psychology, biology, as well as obviously philosophy. With logic, reason, and intuition as our guides, following a phenomenological methodology, we are able to piece together the underlying characterizations of modes of being from a reduction from the “things themselves” experientially in any given noema. As the intuitions are discovered philosophically, the deeper explorations and explanations of the questions it is able to discover are thus open to pursuance by the various scientific disciplines. The verification of initial insights, the pursuit of answers to novel questions discovered in phenomenological analysis, and the subjective revelation of objective truths intuitive through persistent work in phenomenological analysis is something which can benefit anyone who contains the psychic imperative to seek the truth. The intentionality behind such an imperative leaves itself open to important and necessary research, across various disciplines, of which the answers can be valuable in their usefulness and beneficiality for us all (I believe).

On the Phenomenological Mode of Being Itself

On March 10, 2020June 28, 2020 By Chris ShuttleworthLeave a comment

We unconsciously shift modes of being as ever changing circumstances prompt the direction of our essential Being. We all are unconsciously shifting from state to state in the “natural being”, that is, in direct opposition to a “phenomenological being” which recognizes the content as stemming from the distinct modes of being available to our psyche. Somewhere in between is the “mindful being” which is able to recognize the content stemming from the “phenomenological mode of being” or the noesis. The mindful mode fails to recognize the noeses. The phenomenological mode recognizes the mode, but only retrospectively. In directing attention towards the content manifesting in another person’s intentional content (acts such as speech / actions / what we perceive in others as displaying) we can place rudimentary bounds on the state of being they are displaying. The problem with recognizing our own noesis in the moment is that we only apply conceptual definitions to states which already happened, whether they were moments passed, or quite far removed from the present. The present constantly advances, I would say for practical purposes, it advances seamlessly, as our mental processing and subjective experience of it, for practical purposes, is a seamless, transient, impermanent flow of phenomena as they are altered “by the moment”. The smallest piece of the present we are able to experience falls somewhere on a timeline of “Planck time”, with which is smaller than the brain processing power we contain is able to visualize or notice. For all intents and purposes, the moment is not able to be captured, and as it is constantly being altered (the contents of consciousness is constantly being altered) it places us in a very difficult position in regard to noticing our current noesis. What we can do, is notice what noesis we previously were in, and by so noticing, enter into a phenomenological analytic mode of being, which we know we are contained in, if we are performing a phenomenological analysis. Without conscious attention being focused upon the noesis of the previous moment, we are simply not present in the phenomenological analyzing mode of Being, and if we are so seeking such specifications we know we are in a phenomenological analyzing mode of Being. In other words, we are only mindful when we are mindful. And we are only aware of our current state of being when we are looking for it, in which we can define our current mode of being as that which is looking for its current mode of being. Any other mode of being is manifested in a way which is happening, yet is not consciously found, as our consciousness isn’t directed towards an awareness of it. We cannot find what we are not seeking, yet the only thing we can find, is that we are seeking.

The only mode of being which we are phenomenologically able to analyze as being our present mode of being, is the phenomenological analytic mode of being. Where previous phenomenological reductions are made in reference to manifestations occurring in the past, to previous noemas, their content, actions, speech, thought, mental formations, etc., and the classification of such phenomena into a coherent noesis, and then through the reduction of such noesis in order to distinguish its essential characteristics, what we here are doing is searching for the mode of being, or noeses, underlying our current present moment. Now what mode of being can be discoverable in the present moment? Only that which we are looking for. The only method we have in which to look for such a mode of being is a phenomenological analysis. Thus, when we intentionally direct our phenomenological analysis towards the content of the present moment, the only thing we truly know about our current moment mode of being is that we are conducting a phenomenological analysis, thus we uncover that our present moment mode of being is a phenomenologically analytic mode of being. This is formulated with the caveat of time as being free flowing, as it is in our subjective experience, and disregards the physics of “Planck time” as time moving in “chunks” which are unrecognizable in conscious experience. Also, this doesn’t exclude the possibility that we are also simultaneously inhabiting another mode of being, it simply states that the only mode of being we can discover as referring to our present moment, is the phenomenological analytic mode of being. If we think of phenomenology as a search engine with all informational and experiential content appearing in the results, and we become aware that we are using google, we necessarily are aware of google being open in the browser, regardless if there are other tabs, what is happening in the present moment is solely the one tab of google (as the phenomenological analysis). While there are other modes occurring in the present moment, they are necessarily unknown to us in this present moment, while of course, phenomenology can discover this retrospectively, it cannot discriminate and parse out the simultaneous modes of being which overlap in any given moment.

On Phenomenology – Continued

On March 10, 2020June 28, 2020 By Chris ShuttleworthLeave a comment

Mindfulness in its traditional application is a mode of being in which the practitioner becomes aware of the awareness of consciousness in the present moment, i.e. the practitioner becomes aware of the contents of consciousness as they present themselves to the field of consciousness. Attention is directed toward phenomena as they arise, and subsequently fade away to be replaced. Important insights are gleaned from such practice, such as the impermanence of mental phenomena and their inherent transitoriness, the lack of a self – as the contents being ushered into consciousness’s gaze are not being determined by the subject (the practitioner) – and the root of such phenomena is found to be in the very general care structure, or ability to desire. Upon closer introspection and further development of the practice, the root of suffering, and the all-pervasive nature of suffering, are discovered. While mindfulness is useful to the realization in first-hand experience of such immutable truths, experientially we solely are limited to insights gleaned from the gaze into the present moment. Mindfulness enables further recognition of the nature of consciousness, but the story is not completed by such pursuits, it is only partially informed. (Mindfulness and Phenomenology)

In practicing mindfulness, or Vipassana, we become aware of the noema (Husserl’s terminology), or the conscious mental manifestation of phenomena as viewed subjectively. The noema is the experiential aspect of the present moment, whatever content may arise is a given noema. It is the act itself of what is intentioned by our conscious directing in the present moment. It is the content of experience, as we are able to view it. We can push mindfulness to a higher resolution image of these contents through retrospective phenomenological analysis of the content manifested in the present moment. This analysis is done through discrimination, retrospectively, upon the mode of Being, the field of consciousness, which gives rise to the phenomena available to be gleaned in mindfulness.

The pursuit of this content, that of the noesis, is purely the job of the phenomenologist, for purposes which range from psychological to metaphysical, from the advance of our understanding to our personal development. In discerning phenomena using a mindfulness process, we direct our attentional gaze using both subjective intuition and logical reduction of the phenomena to find their essence, i.e. we seek to discover the noesis which is present in the manifestation of the noema, which is available to us introspectively. The groundwork for such phenomena can be found tricky to reduce from the neomatic content, which are ever transient in their appearing, yet philosophers such as Husserl, Heidegger, and Hegel have sought to classify, organize, describe, and relate the different modes of being and their progression through their influential works.

While the phenomenological method has been dictated in many forms, the practical implementation of a phenomenological examination in the course of a detailed practice has been lacking in a structure which is available to be practiced by the general public.

This is a topic which I am seeking to pursue, how to conceptualize a process for the identification of noeses behind noema, and for the ability to utilize such information once it is acquired towards the promotion of the wellbeing of the individual, as well as a higher resolution of the truth of our own, of my own, of the phenomenologist’s own, consciousness, and thus of reality. This is truly a task for those who wish to seek the truth of their Being, and while mindfulness meditation and practice opens the door, phenomenological analysis into the groundwork of conscious modes of Bring which lays behind the phenomena is truly stepping through the door. While science can depict aspects of the neural underpinnings of the cortical mass which can be linked to emotion, thought, and relational hierarchical reasoning, and other modes of sensual representation in their displays to consciousness, the phenomenologists and thus the philosopher seeks a task which only he himself can pursue. These grounds are subjectively discoverable and give us an insight into the objective realization of the structure of our consciousness, and our Being. Only through retrospective phenomenological analysis into the information gleaned through a mindfulness practice is it to be acquired.

The implications of such pursuit are vast, what insight and beneficiality there is to be gained through recognition of structural modes of being which lay behind the perceived phenomena arising in consciousness is something to be discovered, which can be discovered, and we would be wise not to ignore them. The directing of our current mode of being towards such content necessarily places us in a new mode of being separate from the (time/content) to be analyzed, allowing for an infinite regress of content to be explored. What immediately is clear is that modes of being can overlap, and several can be present within the present moment, dependent upon the content thus produced. It is the task of the philosopher to parse out the constituent defining characteristics of such modes of beings, and furthermore to the interrelatedness of the modes, viz. how they interact, and how the separate thesis’s which are used to describe them overlay in their totality to form the synthesis which comprised the synthetic unitary mode of consciousness which contains them. This synthetic unitary mode is all encompassing in its definition, and applies to the field of which all modes of Being are connected, yet they are discretionary in their arising, due to causal factors which we can also further elaborate on. It is clear that this enterprise is vast in its scope and deep in its implications, but the utilization of it, and the insights which are possible to be discovered, appear to be ever vaster.

In reference to the beneficiality of such practice, here noted as phenomenological practice, we are going to base the further discussion upon the insights gleaned through Vipassana, or as will further be described as mindfulness (as the insight meditation practice focusing attention upon the contents of consciousness). In mindfulness we learn how certain contents, and habitual formations arise, and in response to what triggers them. We learn how to cope with such phenomena in a way which is beneficial to us, or in alignment with our morals, or preconceived value and care structures. We can apply our value, moral, and care structures to the navigation not only in response to the shifting contents of our consciousness, but to the modes of being discoverable and thus subsequently recognizable in their manifestation through phenomenological practice. E.g. we discover through the exclamation of certain truths, or of conceptual exertions of truth-claims (valued as certain through our doxic (belief) structure) as being contained in a mode of being of certainty. Thus we state something with absolute confidence, perhaps in a conversation, as being categorically true. Upon reflection upon that content which manifests itself in our awareness through being mindful of the moment, we can later reflect upon such memory, or stored representation of the present moment, and seek to reduce the mode of consciousness which we inhabited in the moment of exertion. Of course the topic on hand is relevant to the mode of being we find ourselves in, but we strip that away further, and find that beneath the content, beneath the circumstances, beneath the external and internal causality which conditions the response in us of exerting what we believe to be a truth-claim, that we are inhabiting a mode of consciousness of “certainty”.

If our moral and value structure is thus formulated to be one of fallibility (Intro to Fallibilism), in the spirit of continual progression and abhorrence to dogmatic claims, we find the mode of certainty to be truly dissonant in respect to our value structure. Thus we can consciously direct our efforts to avoid pursuing the mode of being thus recognized as “being certain” and through conscious training become habitualized to act otherwise than the prior causally condition habitual response. We are not looking in grounding our actions to be counter to the manifestation of the content which is elicited by the mode of being of certainty, but instead to be counter to the mode of “being certain” itself. Such an effort in affecting our mode of being will subsequently produce actions and intentions which are directed from a mode of being counter to the original mode of being, and properly in line with our conscious value structure of remaining fallible.

In a similar sense as the Buddhist works at conditioning himself away from unwholesome thoughts and towards the propagation of wholesome thoughts, and likewise in speech, views, and actions, we seek to condition ourselves towards wholesome modes of being, and away from unwholesome modes of being. Thus in the case where such further encounters with the mode of being of certainty, we can quickly recognize the triggers to its manifestation, its formal manifestation, and in response, move away from making neomatic claims (actual acts) and seek to inhabit the mode of being fallible, in order to produce a reactive response which is in line with our moral and value structure, which isn’t overpowered by the “archetype”, so to speak, of certainty, but instead that of fallibility. This mode of being more accurately represents the synthetic unitary mode of Being, to me at least (in this personal example) which is a more authentic representation of the totality of who we are, rather than the one dominant mode being which seeks to overexert itself, namely, that mode of “certainty”.

In this way we can, in addition to mindfulness, consciously direct ourselves towards the implication of a phenomenological practice, the fruits of which can be used in a practical manner not only to provide information depicting a higher resolution image of the truth of our Being, and thus reality, not only towards the beneficiality of our wellbeing in the navigation away from dominant modes of being which we contain yet don’t desire to be prominent, but we additionally can give a more authentic representation of ourselves in our thoughts, speech, and actions, through the practical application of its findings, and work towards habitualized, consciously directed, practice. The progression of our understanding, in our pursuit for truth, and in the realization and authentication of our moral and hierarchical value structures is of paramount importance for the individualization, and progression of the individual, to becoming more fully actualized in his conduct and cognitive apprehension of reality (Value System Instantiation). Thus if we seek to be moral, and seek truth, we should endeavor to push past mindfulness practice into the newly discovered field of phenomenological practice.

In summary, what underlies the present moment act, or mental activity, which presents itself in mindfulness, is the type or mode of acting which is taking place. Here we are defining the content as the noema, and the acting, or mode of consciousness producing the noema, as noesis. (Husserl’s Terminology) The noema is consciously directed toward an object, whether in that moment it be memory, a thought, a perception, a feeling of sensual origination, etc. The mode of being giving rise to such content, is described linguistically as remembering, thinking, perceiving, feeling, etc. What we seek to discover in our analysis is first, the noema, secondly, the noesis, thirdly, the conditions and essential nature of the noesis, fourthly, the causal connectedness of underlying factors producing the noesis (external circumstances, inner disposition, biological/hereditary/cortical processing (neuroscientific explanations)), fifthly, how to navigate the reduction and the instigation of modes of being or noesis in a consciously directed way in order to give an optimal result in our experience of life and the manifestations of our actions, which is dictated by acquired knowledge, and implemented using practical wisdom (phronesis).

Where the intention from which acts in the noema stem from are to be uncovered through discovery of the noesis present in their manifestations, we can also look to what is manifesting the noesis itself. This entails seeing the causal relation between modes of being changing, whether it be directed through conscious instigation, environmental factors, or necessary progression. We can seek to reduce from the given information present to us what are the causal conditions which allow the synthetic unitary consciousness, or the Totality of our Being, to give rise to the mode of being discoverable in the noesis. We can find this to be conditioned through unconsciously formulated pathway of reciprocity to present situations, which has roots in biological processes and, in short, the totality of our experience through life (starting with hereditary and environmental factors).

While these are surely relevant to us, what is more valuable is the course correcting away from sub optimal, or dissonance causing modes of being (in contrast to our consciously formulated value structure). Consciousness is constantly undergoing an updating process as new experience and data is collected through our perspectival horizon, this datum enters into its triage, which is collected through the value system’s discrimination, and in turn the filtration system itself is modified. This modification of the value structures filtration of perceived content subsequently affects the relevant experience presented to us in our subjective experience of consciousness itself. We are interested in how to affect this system consciously, in the most optimal way for our Being, that which we are in our entirety. This is to be done through the aforementioned noesis recognition, a conscious system of noeses which are discerned as more optimal, and the consciously directed self-conditioning of the instigation of modes of being in line with the pre thought-out value structure. Just as we learn anything through experience, practice, and self-training, the same principle applies to the adjustment of our mode of being. Once we learn to recognize the manifestation of an unwanted or wanted mode of being, and are able to conscious recognize such content through the noema present to us in proper mindfulness, we are able to utilize that information towards the cessation of unwanted modes of being, and the arising of wanted modes of being. The desire structure which is inherent in all content is not able to be avoided, or replaced by simply the “denial of the will” as Schopenhauer puts it, as even such a denial is a manifestation of the desire structure – such phenomena as our desire structure we must learn to live with, and utilize to our benefit, through the phenomenological practice directed towards the modes of being which are of greater interest to us in our hierarchical structure. Thus we can utilize the tool which causes us suffering, in order to minimize, or move to a mode of being which contains less suffering, through directing our mode of being in this way.

Where is the proper direction to head? Which modes of Being do we value more than others? How do we manifest different modes of Being? How do we find the synthetic unitary consciousness with which we should seek to authentically represent in our speech and actions through instigation of proper modes of Being? All these questions are relevant and discoverable to the philosopher. And thus an existential question is posited, towards which end ought we head? And using which metric should we follow? It is here that the individual philosopher must make a stand. He must formulate answers to these questions, and seek to embody them, for the development and authentic representation of his being depends on it. We can move in degrees towards the peak of the mountain which we so choose to climb, while one may choose a pathway designated by the current cultural zeitgeist, another may choose the hedonistic peak, while another may follow a whim, it is up to us to decide. There is morality in question, there is truth in question, and there is living in alignment with what we will, there is also, most importantly, that pathway which leads to optimal wellbeing for us. This path towards optimal wellbeing may necessarily involve suffering in its formulation, and is in no way opting for a utopia of the mind which is universal, what is truly the best mode to inhabit for one person, may not be for another, and there is no form in which to generalize such conclusions.

While moral realism holds ground if it is based upon solid foundations, as formulated by Sam Harris, that doesn’t mean that we all will be competent enough to discover what is truly best for us, although our degree of success will always be placed upon a spectrum towards the unknowable height of perfection. What phenomenological analysis enables us to do is to discover the roots of our mode of Being, and what phenomenological practice does is allow us to condition ourselves in the direction we wish to head. While every path objectively is meaningless, and it always is full of meaning to us, subjectively. Thus it is of paramount importance that we discover what is meaningful to us, which modes of being we as the individual who has to subjectively experience this life must further experience. This information, and this uncovering, will allow us to formulate the location in which we are to direct our phenomenological practice towards achieving.

The expression of our inner state in the form of our actions / content of consciousness isn’tof primary importance to us here, what we are more interested in is the mode of being from which all content stems from. For we can alter our speech and actions within a given domain of Being, and they will all reflect the same state, albeit in slightly altered forms. What we must optimize is the mode of Being which we inhabit given a certain set of problems / circumstances which we seek to oppose. There are better or worse solutions to the problems in our lives, navigable to lesser or greater degrees. What we must seek to find is an optimal mode of being from which the appropriate response can flow from.

I find the danger in strict dogmatism in regards to moving forward with utmost confidence in a frame of mind of infallibility. This, I believe, is a trademark of the modern man, and of utmost importance to be corrected from. The archetype of the tyrant, the man who claims to know the answer, the soul who seeks to dominate reality with his current understanding. This mode of Being runs rampant, and plagues the development of the individual to grow, learn, and optimize his current understanding. It is not merely the claim that we know the best solution, nor is it solely claiming that we simply “don’t know”, which is surely true but inconclusive. The mode of being I think that can best correct, and improve the individual, is to have logically conclusive beliefs, in which harmonize with the conceptual unity of the individuals metaphysical doxic structure, yet, simultaneously, the individual must hold that these beliefs are merely beliefs. This doesn’t mean that knowledge is unattainable, it solely means that whether we have true knowledge, or are ignorant, that there is a possibility that at the very most this information is partial. There is always more “background” truths to be uncovered, there is always more information to be had, more time to be spent, more “wisdom” to be encountered and utilized towards a “better” optimal solution. We may be truly correct, objectively, yet when one maintains a fallibilistic mode of being in regard to truth claims, what happens is that we gain a pragmatic advantage in every area with which we are ignorant, whether it be in areas of known unknowns, or unknown unknowns, yet while passionately holding a belief, we do not resign from action and evaluation, or in decisiveness. We lose certainty and we gain every possibility for ever growing inner expansion. If we don’t hold this mode of being close, we risk losing out, on something we may not even know we are missing. The only knowledge and information we have to work with in response to novel problems arising necessarily stems from experience, and it is natural to seek to move forward with preconceived knowledge in the confrontation with chaos. While we must not stagnant, we must also hold firmly in mind that any decision we make, any truth-claim we state, can be improved upon, can be better informed, can come from a mode of being which altogether transcends our current one. The amount of time taken in pursuit of more optimal solutions, and towards which issues we direct our conscious attention to analyzing, falls under the domain of wisdom. While we must look to overcome challenges, if something is a challenge to us, it necessarily implies an unknown. In order to combat it we must seek to recognize that there is an unknown, and transfer it into our conceptual framework for “known unknown”. This requires relinquishment of the mode of being of absolute certainty.

Phenomenological Bracketing, Analysis, and Insights Gleamed

On March 2, 2020June 27, 2020 By Chris Shuttleworth1 Comment

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.

Seek Truth

Author: Chris Shuttleworth

On Abortion – Political / Moral / Personal

Political Perspective

Moral Perspective

Personal Perspective

“What Your Mind Creates is Not to be Trusted”

Phenomenological Analysis of Conscious Direction

Intro to Psychological Classifications

Psychological Exposure and Discipline Therapy

Phenomenology of the Spiritual Mode of Being

Phenomenological Analysis of Vipassana Meditation Noema

On the Phenomenological Mode of Being Itself

On Phenomenology – Continued

Phenomenological Bracketing, Analysis, and Insights Gleamed