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.