How Consciousness Creates Reality - From Perception to Free Will
Our striving for knowledge is a declaration of love. By gaining wisdom we are loved in return. The most basic structure of consciousness and reality deciphered and a direct solution to the problem of free will.
The Self, Emptiness, and Awareness
Alternating Consciousness. From Perception to Infinities and Back to Free Will
Buy the book
How Consciousness Creates Reality. The Full Version
Claus Janew |
Truthfulness. The Consciousness that Creates Reality
How Consciousness Creates Reality
"There is no book that explains consciousness in such a clear way as it is given in this book."
Rajagopalan Madasami, India
Buy the book
Also in this book:
Omnipresent Consciousness and Free Will
Dynamic Existence
Everything is in motion. "Inertness" arises from (approximative) repetition, that is, through rotation or an alternation that delineates a focus of consciousness. This focus of consciousness, in turn, must also move/alternate (the two differ only in continuity). If its alternation seems to go too far - physically, psychically or intellectually - it reaches into the subconscious. In this way, interconnection is established by the alternation of the focus of consciousness. Therefore, in a world in which everything is interconnected, all focuses must reciprocally transition into each other. "Reality" is a common "goal", a focus which all participants can switch into and which is conscious to them as such, as a potential one. Its "degree of reality" is the probability of its fully becoming conscious (or more simply: its current degree of consciousness). Thus, a reality is created when all participants increase its probability or, respectively, their consciousness of it.
Laws of Form: Why Spencer-Brown is missing the point
Radical constructivism - a hollow shell?
On focus dynamic
The Core
Nonarguments
Correct. It is written in a free style, as in the time when great discoveries were made in philosophy.
Primal trust
If we ask for the one cause that repeatedly leads to human misbehavior against our better judgment, we find the lack of a sense of connection with others, with the environment, and with everything higher. If we had it, we would be aware that everything is a single movement of consciousness, that every experience flows into all other experiences and draws from the dynamic balance of a deep wholeness. On the one hand, this comprehensive balance allows us to be flexible with our own mental and social balance without falling into a bottomless pit. On the other hand, flexibility on a smaller scale is a good way to maintain stability on a larger scale.
Higher harmony – fulfilling suffering?
Does happiness make sense?
Some people would rather ask what meaning life should have if not the purpose of becoming happy. Really? Is that all there is to it?
As I said, perhaps a clever drug would be enough to give you perfect feelings of happiness until the end of your life. Wouldn't it?
That would be too dull for me too. But what are we looking for instead?
Creating
Creating is an endless game of separating (projecting, that way changing) of inner aspects, so getting a new individuality, which we can rejoin (and re-enjoy) then. One moment later we separate a new form of our infinite inner reality and so on. We integrate all these "objects" in a new manner, while our awareness expands. This awareness also just means going into restricted experiences and coming back to the bigger "picture", that now has become more comprehensive, both consciously and subconsciously.
Opinions
I have been trying to understand how people come to their opinions. Pure logic and impartiality are rare - largely independent of intelligence. Emotions constantly distort thinking in one direction or another. Fear of something in particular does this. Often subliminally, but you can see it very well if you pay attention. In discussions, I can sometimes see, as if under a microscope, how someone fails to think ahead at a particular point, but always turns back to what is pleasant. And, of course, the appearance of rationality has to be maintained.
What has love to do with creativity?
If love is (re)union with one's own potential, then
creativity is its realization. If creativity follows the urge to realize
oneself, to reflect, expand and harmonize in new ways, then love is the
emotional expression of the underlying meaning.
Where does this sense of creative urge come from?
Interaction (exchange) with spiritually and mentally harmonizing beings, consciousness focuses and concepts creates a special awareness. It is characterized by a higher rate of vibration (alternating frequency) and greater involvement of a consciousness close to the essence: The loved one is always on our mind and is important in a subtle or intense way.
Truth, Harmony, and Free Will
The stem of the Reality Funnel summarizes the
alternation of the less conscious points of view "perspectively". But
if they don't just jump around there, they also have a closer effect on each
other and are wound up in places to cores that harmoniously connect many perspectives. (Without harmony, they
would fall apart again.)
Such a comparatively harmonious core, such as our inner self, can hold our Awareness (I) together, and from it probably emanate more comprehensively harmonizing impulses for thought and action than from the adjusting roles of our little ego. On the other hand, this ego can often handle everyday situations better. Therefore, it is best if each one devotes itself to its own subject and benefits only from the skills of the other. We can feel such a harmony like a beautiful concert. If, on the other hand, the ego is completely in tune with the inner self, we can speak of unity, but hardly of harmony: The connection is too rigid and the duet probably short.
Is There a Constant Reality?
If we can exist only in the constant change of the
point of view (sensory, psychic, mental) and this must apply analogously to
every place of effect (hardly has it worked, it is different), how then
stability, something constant arises?
Of course, by repeating the alternation: of thought, of way of looking at things, of mutual confirmation, of effect. Quite exactly, the change can be repeated only for an infinitely short moment; then it must already reach beyond the repetition in order not to cancel itself out. That is, it changes altogether and thereby remains open. For stabilization, approximate repetition is sufficient, though. So we believe approximately the same thing for a long time.
Probability Thinking
When we
weigh between two alternatives, say between job A and job B, we weigh between
their respective priorities. Each job
has a certain probability of realization, which can change during the weighing,
whereupon the probability of the other job immediately adjusts. That is, if we
prefer job B, job A becomes less probable, but remains available in the
background for a while. With job B we choose an individual probability hierarchy as such to our reality.
What about the other candidates? They and their choices are also part of our probability hierarchy. They are aspects of our individual Awareness, which as a whole decides for a new individual reality, for a new probability hierarchy. This means in reverse: The other candidates have their own awareness and choose their own probability hierarchies. We all meet in the respective awareness, but we do not merge.
Subconscious - Free or Not?
- We are aware of what exists for us in the circumscribing alternation of perspectives as their common approximation.
- When perspectives slip away from the approximation, we can still be aware of them. They exist as such in constant alternation.
- Everything that exists dynamically (i.e., alternately) transitions in a funnel-like manner from the most conscious "opening" through a perspectively "narrowing" stem into an awareness that we can call subconscious.
- This subconscious ultimately extends to All That Is.
All That Is – What is Awareness? (II)
This consequence entails others:
- We must basically be able to put ourselves into the individual awareness of other humans (and even non-humans). Indeed, we empathize with others; otherwise we could not communicate with them. We at least repeatedly approximate their points of view and thus converse with persons who are similar to them. If we were to put ourselves completely in their position, our consciousness would quickly be overwhelmed and would have to repress most of it into the subconscious.
- Changing a point of view is changing the whole reality (a rearrangement of the Reality Funnel), namely from a foreseen, probable reality to an even more probable one, the present reality. As one reality takes precedence, the others fall into their subordinate position. They become or remain potential, just as the one that now takes precedence was before. But they do not disappear: They are still aware standpoints
The Reality Funnel - What is Consciousness? (II)
In What is Consciousness? (I) we considered the formation of i-structures through
circumscription, and in What is Awareness? (I) the alternation of perspective
as such. But basically both are one and the same.
Circumscribing
movement - consciousness - is of course an alternation of individual points of
view. And the perception of an alternation - awareness - also circumscribes a
constant center. The difference between emphasized
circumscription and emphasized alternation
lies in the density of the circumscribed central area. If the circumscribing
alternation (for example, between facades) forms an object (a house), the
content-dense center symbolizes its unity ("being inside"). If the
alternation is perceived more as such, the object character is thin ("Is
it several houses or one?").
The maximum of unity is in the intuitive center point, while the maximum of alternation is in the alternation itself. That is, the alternation is authoritative and the circumscription is derived. (Without facades, there is no interior.)
What is Awareness? (I)
The uniqueness of each standpoint, each point of view,
can obviously only be "overcome" by changing the standpoint to other standpoints. And returning. In
such alternation alone, which can also appear as constant change, lies the
unity of the world.
The grasping of this dynamic unity goes beyond mere consciousness, because Consciousness (I) always tends to circumscribing condensation, i.e. to the formation of symbolic, quasi-static objects. In contrast, the change to other points of view - other individual attitudes - is naturally more open. The perception of this alternation is what I call awareness.
How is Freedom of Choice Possible?
The question of whether we can freely choose among
several possibilities, without imagining this freedom or confusing it with
chance, leads us to the truth about our responsibility. For if we had to answer
for something that came from us but was not decided
by us, it would be no more than the responsibility of a cloud for its rain.
To find the answer, let us consider the simple choice between two continuations of our day, for example, whether to go to the cinema or to the theater. Actually, we like both equally, although sometimes we feel more like one than the other. Today, however, we really don't care; we could just as well flip a coin. But we don't - that would be too cheap. We think. We put ourselves into the cinema, then into the theater, then back into the present, and so on. In this way we circumscribe the entirety of the decision situation, the present being its center. Strictly speaking, this center is infinitely small, right in the middle of the whole circumscription with all its details. That is, in us.
What is Consciousness? (I)
Whatever consciousness "is" - it must have
structure. Even emptiness can only be defined in contrast to fullness and
non-duality versus duality (as the word says). Or it is simply "Mu".
And that would be the end of this paper - and everything else.
I suggest that we take some time with this and try to start from a consciousness that is as concrete as possible, from a conscious object, say a water glass. We perceive something that we distinguish from ourselves. We also distinguish it from its environment (table, cupboard, room) and determine it in comparison with other known things (table, cup, plate) to what it "is". That is, we circumscribe its existence by comparison. Likewise, it stabilizes itself through external and internal interactions (pouring and drinking, molecular attraction and repulsion).
Individuality and Reality
Your individuality is much more than a little
peculiarity. It is a view that nothing and no one has but you. Otherwise
it/he/she would be you. Also, you will have changed your perspective - yourself
- in the next moment, and you cannot turn back time.
For convenience, we agree on "common" objects that are supposedly perceived by everyone, although everyone is looking at things from his or her own point of view. If you see me rolling a pen across the table to you, you may think it is the same pen that I see. But I see something completely different from what you see. There is not the slightest concord between my perception and yours. Otherwise, I would be sitting in your place, having your thoughts, memories, and feelings, and connecting them to a shape that is rolling toward me.
Wealth and envy
Material wealth does not exist. For wealth is always felt. Even the value of the spiritual.
The materialist identifies with his possessions, the life-experienced person may not need them, and the spiritual seeker may not understand what to do with them. Everything can be more or less in harmony with our soul, more or less deeply or superficially, more or less directly or indirectly. In fact, wealth can be attained without any "detours" through external events or achievements: in meditative silence. Because basically we already have it. We just need to rediscover it.
From the land of milk and honey
A world in which our every wish was immediately granted would obviously not make sense to us, but would simply be arbitrary. We wouldn't even need to have a specific wish, because we could just as easily have any other wish. We wouldn't need to understand our desires, in fact there would be nothing to understand. What we now know about ourselves, and what could serve as the basis for our desires, would have no connection to any more comprehensive reality. So we might as well wish for our dissolution. And why shouldn't we?
What is truth?
Truth is a controversial concept. Some deny its existence altogether – which would be a truth in itself. Others see it as a fundamental belief, call it "knowledge," and have a hard time understanding why others seem to overlook it. But everyone understands that there can be a difference between what one says, what one believes, and what one knows. And which of these takes precedence when it matters.
What
matters?
Division by Zero - a playful short discussion
James Anderson* has proposed an obvious definition for the dreaded division by zero...
To ensure consistent formatting, the document is in PDF: Division by Zero
Radical constructivism - a hollow shell?
Radical constructivism was initially formulated by Ernst von Glasersfeld.
Radical constructivists do not speak of creating reality, but of
constructing reality. What is the difference?
"Creating reality" ultimately means creating everything, without exception. "Constructing reality"
means interpreting external "disturbances" and thus shaping effects.
Thus the constructivist has the lesser claim, but at the price of
inconsistency. He cannot avoid including an external cause of effect that essentially
determines his construction. In principle, however, he cannot and does not want
to know by what this obviously pre-structured effect is exerted. What is
important is only what is useful in the context of one's own life, whereby
"usefulness" is equally constructed and thus co-determined by this
external something, and so on.
Instead, he might well admit that there is an external reality, the effect of which he is only further constructing. But he would not be saying anything essentially new. And once he admits its pre-structuring, he might as well go on to ask what else there is to "pre-recognize". And with that, he abolishes the radicality of constructivism.
Laws of Form: Why Spencer-Brown is missing the point
Individuality and the physical paradigm
- The Brain is seen as the ultimate "perceiver". But who perceives the brain? The brain again? This is a circle, where my concept of circumscription comes in.
- Reality is seen as physical after all, and by "physical" our paradigm is meant. From this a limited view of information derives. Here, my infinitesimality structure suggests a deeper view from which "information" derives.
- "Physical" also means "objective", and objectivity is considered to be "not part of the observer" (the term "observer" contains this misunderstanding in itself). So where in this world is the observer? Observed by whom? Or not observed at all?
Reality and creation in a nutshell (dynamic existence)
- Perception of dynamic existence is awareness.
- Awareness is infinitesimality-structured.