The Question of a Word.
A)How can I tell self consciousness apart from consciousness. ? The former insists that very thing, very experience is folded into the plane of myself. You ought to support my attempt to better what I am, oh world world. I Alone matter. But the latter is of course rather distinct. It would be possible to be conscious and yet not self conscious. One cold know one was a part of… One can have the idea of being within God or merely within the orbit of sight. One knows that one knows, one floats about knowledge and pulls out knowing, without that knowing needing to be ones own.
B) The be conscious is therefore to be caught up in the whimsy and very easy grace of thinking. One pitches an existing between alones feeling and all ones thought. One is the complete at the centre the on in the middle- the thing being made by everything. This entity is ultimately necessarily supported u a body and by the outdid world. That I the world will treat the conscious thing as if it were an entity. It will therefore treat and relate to it as it I were merely self conscious. That is as if this complexity only produced a one thing –M.
C) Bt of course it does only in an a poster fashion. Of course after everything, after all the bouncing around in which I am born exit. That I a poor tautology. The point about the conscious mind is that it is what is there, what contemporary with the birth of me, and what always feels it might have been able to be different.
D)Leibniz apperceptions therefore almost the opposite of Kantian. The Kantian self all about asserting the right of self consciousness to rivet a me into the one being. Leibniz apperception of the contrary stands always on the cusps of many me-s. As I am therefore conscious I could be different if only I listen to my feelings more and yet differently.
E)To be conscious is therefore to be the citizen of very many worlds
F).The holding function of such an individualist then not the self so much as the light of perception. The light of that reality its vivacity, eddies around what I am and drives me into being other me-s.
G) However society can only express this othered realm within the rubric of money and wealth. Wealth is the power to make or open possibles Money therefore invest the world with a passionate vividness of its own?To be conscious has therefore always on some level been tied to wealth, either actually or more often in dickens spiritually
H)Either way the rich were philosophers – or philosophy gave one a wealth beyond money . Either was money was the extra value or our embodiment of it, that we know the light of our eyes, the vivacity in our minds and across our thoughts invests into an us. There stuff that we borrow to be conscious. That is to light up mind, and reckons and think across it.
I) We know we know, therefore. We are effectively an affect to ourselves (with a holding passions of a selfish I which then always claims that productivity.).
J) It is no wonder though that as Dickens suggests that passions founds this knowledge rather tricky. Passions are a force which makes a Self as a Self. This whimsical blending of all I am, and listening to other me-ing is then an anathema to such a strident demand. Passions creates my. Or better it creates that which will be bound up into being me(eventually), -my take on the world. The mere supposing of a free boating consciousness that likely throw around the mind and render thought vivid and feeling complex, in a space othered to a simple I is then something passion wishes to crush.
K)We feel his aright – it shouts or possibly this or maybe that. Stop this being all of them. Stop saying yay and nay at once you bugger.
L)And yet is passion is otherness than money which would claim to be its support and different from passion, it has a real problem. How can it enter into the world where does it find the power to be something more that the selfish I of passion which endlessly wants to claim it within a single entity. How then does it listen to the otherness within it?
M)This problem this taking be as conscious beyond any one body(As Spinoza says0 is invariably tied to a reworking f time. Time has been since Kan at least understood in term of the advent of a unity across diversity.
N)This unity was the result of a stately progress which took one from the present via the past to the future (or in Kant’s version perhaps from the future to the past and then to the present). The point in case way shot this stately array of tenses (Heidegger and Deleuze were hear), allowed a unity a unity across a time, while defining the sense in which that very unity buggered it up.
O)The future was the point in which the I collapsed therefore. or better it was the name for this multiple I-ing. The point that it cannot hold itself down any more.
P) And yet this begs three questions.
Q) Firstly there I that problem of the unity of such time. It not time a question in unity – a question of what then tumbles into the past as its on unity . The past might then endlessly split, but it splits according to the rules of being the past, I hold its own way of different, and fosters it one everything else.Is is therefore caught in a single eloped attribute – a way to differ. The future will then be that which while it might hold the difference will do so in such a way that that difference can later be held in this unity. It is therefore limited in scope.
R)Consciousness itself might then be other that this as it is other than mere self consciousness. I might therefore hold many accounts of other difference, onset that need not think the past as a single loci or nexus of differing. The past in me s likely to be complex enough.
S)Secondly T make the entire thing turn of time is to exclude the fact that consciousness as it is conscious is sharable in a s sense. We might in a dream or nightmare be all merely a part in the mind of a God. Time is however thought at some point is a space of the I Think – ht is a space disposes the self as a being or a vessel Open to the world yes, but only as if it were complete to itself. Perhaps we need another non-selves opening to really get to the grips of such beings?
T)Or again these tenses might go in all kinds of way. They might then hook rather differently than the way time and the apostles of time want. They might therefore escape loops in being. Consciousness could know this, but the self would hate it.
U)In all these point the problem is the same, consciousness might dance off in the affect in a way that cannot easily be held down in a body or a mind. It might therefore understand hat mind asset is a part in the idea of God – non specific and fire speak as that will be. If I does, then the portals of…whatever open. That is it becomes created not in flesh but in affects which stream of flesh, and allow the consciousness to align itself in a reality other than the human body itself – and unthought by passion or by the self.
V)The problem is that consciousness knows itself always to be other than the world it creates in the I, and different from the body. We all know we are eternal. We feel God in that eternity.
W) This much is clear enough.
X)But then one has a problem Knowing this is simply not enough. We need to be able to feel it. Better we need to be able to trust the affect to light up our minds and allow us ourselves within its apparent chaos and otherness. The problem is always then how? How does one allow the other within?
Y)The problem here is then that affects and self consciousness are present to each other- and yet will not simply spark into each other- what creature will create such a spark?
Z) The creature is in a sense the creature of the two words. The individual who can feel the sense in which any consciousness any self is caught up in the power of something beyond. Jenny Wren is therefore such as this. She has seen angels, and smells the flowers of heaven? She feels therefore that any one individual, any one ac of consciousness is not fixed in the body. It rather dances of into a heaven which is not something he formerly ‘knows’. It is rather the path for her her being consciousness leads to and through. She does not feel her own vision. She does not own them.
AA)How she might ask can one actually be a visionary? That is daffy, visions come and visions go – flowers are smelt and children appear to not according to something beyond – according to the eternal. One is nothing n this process.
BB)And yet this consciousness of something utterly beyond the elf and yet something conscious is the starting point, Under this gaze consciousness needs to understand how it is not quite of the body.
CC) The body is there or not. we are open or not. t appears alive. But whether and what that life is if then defined within the wandering in and out of a consciousness that at other times is lost in wildernesses of its owning which where and what it is a s a single thing is clearly lost.
DD)It is then the whole of the imperceptible doll maker, the girl imperceptible to witness these journeys. Se alone in her rubric which allows in her dolls and her doubling of thought (aren’t we clever) to follow such trips or at least orientate them.
EE)The dolls maker therefore holds the key to having not ones own past within ones mind. She straddles the swapping or forced exchange of thought. I am the parent she says and you the child –or aren’t we the clever ones – us together our shared past. Or again my angles are not here but something else is, something you are all a part in and of, she say. Her past is either borrowed from you or endlessly generous and giving you a reality of its own. it is not fixed into being or even fixed into one place. The past of her angles is lost to her and yet real to us. It is also clearly the future and she feels it also as such.
FF)That is her perception spin into many tenses. To see angels is to see numerous planes of being t once. It is therefore not to have to bind things down or hold them. But this alone, this freedom to move beyond one room is never enough. One needs to understand a reality beyond this top heavy existence.
GG) Her angle the doll maker has a power. The mind of the imperceptible is also hers. That is she endlessly watches the conscious unconscious mind., She watches and looks. On looking she sees and she interprets. She sees then in the actual flesh before her the sparks before consciousness makes it present felt, and the legacies it leaves.
HH) She sees then these to as the one being, the man who she never trusted, On the contrary she sees then as there are the works of mind freed from body and its constraint. She sees them then in the flicker that could straddle man different universes and multiple thoughts.
II)She sees them therefore in a flicker and understands.
JJ) What see understands is nit the in and out of a consciousness which has lost its body – so much as the fact that this being conscious is in want of a principle.
KK)That is in leaving its body, and entering dark lands it has lost its individuality. It needs then a word to big it back. It needs a movement in which it can appear.
LL) Or to put it differently, she sees the naked power of apperception which is not of this world or this mind. It is of many world and multiple minds.
MM) Normally this multiple being is then held into a single aspect of thought a single word Me.
NN) That is it is he role of the self and its agency self consciousness to rivet be being down in a mane or a word. This was the monad. The Adam across he worlds. The one in many different words.
OO)It serves therefore are the moments of the multiverse, the chimes which straddle across their dimensions.
PP) But if one looks as the doll maker does for another name where can one find it?
QQ)That is what are the discordant chimes that range across the worlds – the moments which need not be in quiet the same place?
RR)The chimes that are never in the same place? Which always tumble for elsewhere.
SS)The answer comes to her then. To listen to this other is to open to the affect – that is to the powers of feeling to take ones consciousness other domains. This was after all always the power of being conscious in the first place.
TT)It is therefore to create in a single work or phrase a partnership- a marriage of the consciousness with affects, that endless tumble in from other universes and across other minds.
UU)In this storm the consciousnesses will be a love or a follower of ,merely a companion.
VV) I tick of not being where it needs to be thought and of escaping all objects – or being an essence eternal, is therefore put to good use. It becomes a holding function he on unified unity for an affect.
WW) That is the silent prophet of an ability to straddle many universes as one has encounters within the world.
XX)The world itself therefore my being multiple in one plane allows or opens out into many othered planes. It very many here, and my feeling or relating to that many here, that allowing other in me, makes their othering within me, their ability to change what I am productive in the sense that it stops their being just the world series of time and the one bound universe for all of time.
YY)The multiple the affective exchange therefore allows the mind or gives consciousness itself reality of being across numerous planes of being at once-It is genuinely the slide between the universes. That which cannot be held to the one, as it caught but the rest.
ZZ) It is thereof the genuine flicker in the mind of God who has never finishes deciding which universe to create – or even ever reconciled himself to riveting down substance as individuals.
AAA)To live then in the many universes of God is to accept a lack of soul and even of ones own individuality. It is to welcome others within to ones natures, One becomes a mere doll in the hands o the imperceptible.
BBB) What ones gains of course is an eternity of sorts. A beatitude that storms and shocks the world will find so hard to rock.
CCC) Where one wants the exchange or not is though always the most (im)personal of choices.