From Alpha to Omega – the Quest

Freud intuited that perfect synonyms don’t exist, that there is always some element of difference, even if only in register. I like to think that’s true although generally I disbelieve absolutist concepts preferring to leave at least unlikely options open. Freud would probably attribute that to insecurity and he might be right, … then again, perhaps not.

So, …

On the relationship between consciousness and sentience, not as dictionaries define them but as I perceive them based on my own experiences and observations as well as on my particular conceptual needs. It’s hard to be wrong given those particular parameters. I wonder if that’s a further sign of Freudian insecurity. Do I suffer from a need to be right or do I merely need linguistic tools with which I can work. And what of awareness? Can I just exclude it from this exercise in profound musing? And what about volition? Best to include them all I think (thus proving, at least to myself and perhaps to Descartes, that “I am”, … or, at least, … that “I think I am”).

Perhaps working backwards, the concept I seek would describe the attainment of cognitive self-awareness. The realization that I exist apart from my surroundings and apart from others, and, upon realizing that, attain the capacity for introspection and speculation and then, perhaps, experimentation.

Why, you might ask, have I focused on this? I know I’ve asked it of myself.

Well, … speculating on the possibility of Divinity I was curious as to its evolution as well as its uniqueness. I recall somewhere, sometime, being exposed to the idea that complexity was a requirement for self-awareness. I have no idea whether or not the claim is accurate, it may even be that it’s a product of my imagination, but it resonates so, for now, I’ll use it as a premise in my speculations.

Are the phenomena with which I’m playing essential for a Divinity? I guess, like everything else under introspective discussion, it depends on definitions. If my concept of Divinity is limited to natural laws and their interaction, then, perhaps not. Is an organic or biological component essential? The answer to that would seem to be defining and can take on a number of differing aspects. One involves differentiation of the spiritual from the material while another involves speculation on the nature of dimensions. A third involves the question of whether or not Divinity requires an aspect of life which then leads to the “from alpha to omega” question of just what constitutes life.

Are Richard Dawkins’ memes in their varied “plexes” at least in some cases variants on life? Ironically, that would seem to make any number of conceptual Divinities possible. Revenge similar to that expressed long ago in graffiti in the men’s room at the old Figaro’s coffee establishment in Greenwich Village: “God is Dead – signed Nietzsche” followed by an unexpected but clearly accurate response, albeit its authorship is subject to question: “Nietzsche is dead – signed God”.

Is there a Divine archetype granted existence, perhaps even life through belief, and if through belief, whose? The Divinity’s or those who acknowledge its existence? Is belief even relevant or are there one or more entities that qualify for the genus “Divinity” who can also exclaim (or at least think, somewhat loudly), “I think, therefore I am” perhaps adding, “I could care less what anything else thinks”.

And just what would those qualifications be?

And what of demiurgery? Apparently a concept so unique that the foregoing word is inexistent. We can have a demiurge but demiurgery, as a calling or profession, … nothing there other than a squeal from spellcheckers everywhere. And so, “demiurge”, would that be one among the Divine or a shared attribute? Or what if it’s really a pejorative used by those highly dissatisfied with the resulting creation? Or is it a job shared among the Divine, assuming he, she, it or they exist; one assumed at varying stages or in different times or in different places? Can you imagine a Demirge U, or Demiurge State, would it or they include sports in the curriculum, what about championships and how would you define cheating? Or worse, how would you arbitrate it; officials might not be all that easy to find. And what about bookies?

Anyway, ….

On the relationship between consciousness and sentience, not as dictionaries define them but as I perceive them based on my own experiences and observations, and on my particular conceptual needs. It’s hard to be wrong given these particular parameters, I wonder if that’s a further sign of Freudian insecurity. Do I suffer from a need to be right, or, do I merely need to use linguistic tools with which I can work. And what of awareness? Can I just exclude it from this exercise in profound musing? And what about volition? Best to include them all I think (thus proving, at least to myself and perhaps to Descartes, that “I am”, … or, at least, … that “I think I am”).

What if I’m just confused?
_______

Share this:

Like this:

Related