C O N S C I O U S N E S S :


by Francis Tokarski



Consciousness is a word I don’t like to NOT apply - and by apply I mean to apply all around. Consciousness pretty much is everywhere - even in plants and insects; so on... There is, of course, consciousness of consciousness - and my Big Question is: Is consciousness by definition conscious of itself - such that this self-awareness exists all around us? Perhaps even in each and every cell of one's body? In any case, I would say that consciousness, if not self-aware consciousness, is to be found all over... In fact, I would equate the consciousness in one's head to The Godhead. Or to Tao. For Consciousness is The Ground of Being. I would say Consciousness is a dimension. For something to exist, it requires Heighth, Length, Width - and Time for that Height, Length and Width to take place inside of; and all of these dimensions (as you imagine something existing, like, say, a cube) take place in the CONSCIOUSNESS of one's mind. Consciousness is pre-requisite to Time is pre-requisite to the Spatial Dimensions - see Schopenhauer’s essay “On The Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason.”

...I myself would say that consciousness fundamentally is undivided. The big mystery is, How come consciousness is funneled into various brains with various points of view from that one big Consciousness with a capital C? Is each and every being/creature an eyeball of the Godhead? -- a nerve ending of the Cosmos?

When one dies, where does this Consciousness go? It has nowhere to go to - just like, if you plucked out your right eye, the sort of consciousness, that had gotten to partake of the Seeing in that right eye, does not go away - you are still conscious. Consciousness is fundamentally One. It is Oneness itself.

“The brain is an antenna,” as an acquaintance of mine said.


In the history of Western Philosophy (peruse Bertrand Russell's book of the selfsame name), the debate of Universalism vs. Particularism (a.k.a. Nominalism) is, simply put, a big deal. Are there Universals? Are there only particulars? Plato would say there really are only Universals, and that what we see, the phenomena, are like shadows in a cave - the shadows of the truths (the Universals) that exist in pure, ideal forms, virginal from manifesting/becoming... But others may say such "ideas" (Platonic ideas) are mere ideas - mere words; mere constructs and the ART of language - that Language is an art that creates an artistic rendition of a reality which, in any case, cannot be grasped - this would be Schopenhauer with his thesis of “The world is my representation.” (- before he, later in the book, elaborates to fit in the Platonic ideas). We are animals that are artists by our very deepest natures. Simulators.

Carefully reading Schopenhauer's book “The World as Will and Representation” I’ve brought from it  a modified version of his philosophy. There is only one Universal - and that is Consciousness per se, the only Kantian “thing-in-itself,” the only Platonic Idea. Schopenhauer would say that would be the Will, which he says is unconscious, and that consciousness springs from the Intellect, which is secondary to the Will. I say Will is secondary to Consciousness and is the left-brain aspect of our artistic (“artificing”) essences. Language, I say, is of this left-brain artistry. But metaphoric thinking is the use of language as a tool bestowed by the left-brain for use by the right; or, as the left brain’s attempt to hack into the right brain; or the left-brain with its language [Logos; ANSUZ] working at one with the right-brain [Intuition; LAGUZ].

Everything is Consciousness broken down into a myriad of non-ideal forms/phenomena. This is the sort of Hindu myth, as I spin it, of Brahma the creator God, being pure unified energy/consciousness in the pre-Big Bang state; and then this Brahma-Oneness pretended to expand into various forms - it disintegrated its consciousness, went all Sybil on us... In the beginning was the Word, states the Gospels; and the Word [Logos], was the breaking down of Oneness into the “relative world,” to use a Buddhist term. The pre-Big Bang state, being All One, could only be UNDERSTOOD (made self-aware) with a contrast. Oneness itself is logically (log[os]ically) impossible without contrastive non-oneness. Therefore the Oneness exploded...

That, indeed, is how the Big Bang began.


But this multiple personality take on "God's creation" is another way of saying that we are all neurotic due to believing in those individual funnels Consciousness is hooked into (our brains)... When our intellects start to THINK, and THINK about THINKING, and THINK ABOUT CONSCIoUSNESS PER SE, then comes...


and the belief in One-


as opposed to One-


It is this sort of thinking, this thinking that is a sort of feedback of the mind - like someone thinking so hard about balancing on their bicycle that they fall off it; the way that if you stretch out your hand and try to keep it still it shakes, but if you JUST DO IT (Zen-like) then the hand is calm; - it is THIS KIND OF “feedback thinking” which I would say the Primal People - the people of old, that is - a.k.a, those of hunting and gathering societies, in natural states of tribalism with a free and automatic sense of socialism and democracy - THIS SORT OF “SPLIT THINKING,” schizo-thinking, that they did NOT have...

The Primal Mind was enlightened because it held a sort of non-self-conscious consciousness...

And, as for “The Fall” as depicted in The Bible, I view that as a metaphor for the advent of "feedback thinking"...

Notice how in the Fall Myth, Adam and Eve become self-conscious about their nakedness, and have to wear clothes. This nakedness (without the self-consciousness) itself is another metaphor for being true and authentic, without putting on airs - as people do and perhaps feel forced to do in our society, the society and culture of FEEDBACK THINKING...

This feedback is our madness. Sit down and watch it go. Around and around. Try not to touch it. Just watch it. You don’t have to like it. If you notice yourself watching it, just make note that you are doing so, and that doing so is part of the whole buzz...

Non-self-conscious consciousness can be re-gained. It is the Holy Grail of the past that must be brought into the future  - in a Hegelian synthesis of historical evolution.


I wrote a short story that gets at this - it is called MASKLESS... But, actually, it is a little twisted because it shows the hunter/gatherer society wearing masks and then loosing them due to a traumatic event. This shows how often in or society people loose the particular mainstream way of having PROPER feedback thinking, and so "loose it," and have to re-adapt to the current [adjective] current [noun] of mainstream psychosis.



!!! CLICK HERE !!!

Further notes and comments concerning those sections, not present on the page linked...

A] There is only one Platonic Idea (i.e, universal as opposed to all the particulars), and that is Consciousness. Opposed to this, and yet just as much the essence of this as heads is to tails in a coin, is the world of Becoming, i.e, all the particulars. Thus, the sole Platonic Idea - which is Consciousness per se - is also the very realm of Being itself.

Furthermore, because consciousness by definition is consciouses OF SOMETHING, the set of objects that is "the tails of the coin's head" is what manifestly - which is to say, in terms of reality or actuality or fact - constitutes the ream of Being. And so, Being = Becoming. What is, is.


B] Ein Begriff ist das was der Geist greift, was davon gegriffen ist. Gleichzeitig bei dieser greifenden Art Geist, d.h, ein Geist der GREIFER ist, ist entwickelt die Greifern, die   F i n g e r   heissen. Derselbe Gehirnteil beherrscht die beide (so behaupte ich). Sie sind zwei Manifestationen für dieselbe Sache.

Das was die Hand greift, das wird bloss gegriffen; das, was aber der Geist greift, wird doch BEGRIFFEN. Man sieht hier aber nicht die Unterschied zwischen Werkzeug und Begriff, sondern die Unterschied zwischen zwei Arten Werkzeugen, davon jener Begriff heißt. Bei den Beiden haben wir rohen Stoff aus der Welt herausgezogen. Die Innenwelt im Gegensatz zur Äußerwelt wird hierbei a distinction to be made, in order to differentiate the two types of tools (Werkzeugen).

PREHENS-ile hands and com-PREHENS-ible con-CEPTS, like bi-CEPTS, muscles of mind...

C]    Whether there is a meaning behind the “es” in “es gibt” is actually not an exclusively linguistic question, but even a so very philosophical one that - uncharacteristic of the contemporary linguist - one has to wander deep into the dark realm of mysticism in order with science-characterizing thoroughness to carry out the investigation whereby the question would be tackled and thereby forced to yield the answer at last. On the other hand, one cannot help when considering this radically mind-boggling notion of a totally empty subject but to be reminded of the Schopenhauerian notions regarding the Subject as opposed to the Object - in the Buddhist sense of the Ground of Being - or with other words for exactly the same thing, in the mythological terminology of Hinduism: the all-knowing but never knowable “Godhead” - what we can hereby term the the very EYE of the Universe!

    The unbroken ground of being is transcendent of the principle of sufficient reason, and thus unadulterated by the principium individuationis a.k.a. Maya. People have the urge to know what the subject is, it is like a nagging tic of Tourettes to  ask this question and fill in the unknowable with the pseudo-known: that is what it means to be a mortal. This subject is raw consciousness transcendent of all individuation, it is existence per se, and it is Schopenhauer’s “Will” - though we need not get into his pessimism, and could as a remedy put it in Nietzschen terms: this subject would be Dionysos prior to being torn to shreds, each of the shreds being one of all the many illusive Greek theatrical masks a.k.a. personae - whence etymologically comes the word person, of which we are all, in Apollonian illusiveness, living in what we call “world,” i.e, this realm under the Veil of Maya. In the end the question is not about how could there possibly be a subject devoid of meaning, but how could the All be so adulterated or deluded as to be masked over, i.e, PERSON-ified, as a “meaningful” subject. In other words - to put it in terms of linguistics - there is no true reason, merely “rational reasons” (note the circular redundancy!) for a sentence to have a subject. Of course, as humans we UTTER, just like birds tweet and cats purr; so of course we might verbally twitch out an “es” now and then; but the true deludedness, or psychosis of humanity, I should say, sets in when one projects individuated meaning into subjecthood. Really, the whole sentence should stand on its own as one long verb; what could the subject do other than color the verb, as in Latin, where the subjective ending follows the verb stem despite the fact the syntax has the subject before the verb... What caused this discrepancy? Was it because Latin descends from a VSO word order, and a pronominal S became an enclitic of V while concurrently syntax VSO > SOV? Along parallel lines we could solve the problem of crossing nodes in VSO languages by saying there are NO crossing nodes given that S itself is subordinate to V, and that only V could have meaning... The ground of being is a container that observes happenings, waves of events, a rhythm without things or objects except those of the illusions of concepts - the hallucinatory extrapolations out of the flow of life... But to posit that the subject itself is one of these extrapolations is the same as saying that the mind itself contains the mind, or that the mind is smaller than the mind (so that it can fit into itself) - but that is a logical absurdity. And yet, such is the psychosis of living under the Veil of Maya, i.e, of being neurologically hard-wired for a cognition set-up to channel the Subject like the beam of a flashlight through a prism of forms, the shape of the prism being the principle of sufficient reason, and the rainbow effect of it being the Apollonian display of the principium individuationis. One must wonder if in other climates, other lifestyles, where humanity is allowed to realize itself, where life can be lived in harmony with itself, if not this healthiness of the Mindbody would exhibit a form of language less fractured by Maya... Are not there languages where each sentence is a verb, and the only words there are, are verbs? I would imagine such people would have not much need of talking; for they would understand the fundamental mental illness inherent in Speech per se. And so, what are these cultures, these peoples - this people without table talk, who speak in accordance with the biological urge to do so, like a cat purring or bird tweeting, but who do not let their intellects - i.e, the Great Grasper - to throttle their thought-flow into a spew of concepts for the sake of concepts... I am talking about speech firstly for the sounds, and concepts to fill those sounds; but not making first concepts, and then force-fitting the sounds to match the concepts... The latter is analogous to editing a beautiful symphony to fit the the intonations and prosodic patterns of the critics’ abstract descriptions of it... In the end, the symphony would be lost, but the critique would gain central importance... We would here see the genesis of logicians and mathematicians - people who play with symbols for the sake of symbols - and the pragmatists would fall for believing in these abstractions of abstractions, illusions of illusions, lies built on lies, these nothingnesses, because they would see thereby their dreams and nightmares unfold in the sense of, say, going to the Moon based sheerly on being able to manipulate numbers and data well - yes, that is technology! - but with this, the Earth is being destroyed, and people are all severely isolated and “insane-feeling” inside... This isolation, i.e, the many individual containers of the Dionysian fire- personae/persons, that is - is merely the Apollonian side of reality, corresponding to the right hemisphere of the brain and the yang in the yinyang. But we have lost the way of Dionysos - he has become too suppressed, in the same way the yin - the feminine form - has become suppressed and is unheeded and misunderstood even by herself as she “mans up” even as she faces down in a pillow under the weight of a man’s world.


The World as Will and Representation’ by Schopenhauer;

‘The Birth of Tragedy out of the Spirit of Music’ by Nietzsche.

D] Breakin’ it down...


Consciousness = the only true Platonic idea... I am a particularist/nominalist up until the point of Consciousness, i.e, the grandest category because it is like a container that surrounds all within the principle of sufficient reason; this is what Tao means, I suppose...


consciousness = existence = volition ( a trinity)


Consciousness cannot be anything without being conscious OF something - by definition; therefore consciousness implies, and exists as, apparent components - merely apparent... these are the objects...

These objects are the “ten thousand things” (Chinese for Universe) - and Consciousness is the great ring around them - like the Perfect Circle in Zen... - Consciousness being Tao, being Godhead...


Consciousness is a dimension of the universe, the ultimate dimension, one, and the only one, to transcend the principle of sufficient reason - consider Time’s before and after and Space’s heighth, length and width, all of which are SUBJECT TO (mere pun?) the principle of sufficient reason...



volition = the graspING

subject = the graspER

the world/objects/Chinese “ten thousand things” (= idiomatic term for the Universe) = the graspED


But conceptions of the subject must be false, because conceptions are subordinate to it…


“Do not use the lords name in vane,” says Judeo-Christianity - and now we know the hidden meaning of it! Yet this Commandment is already covered by “Thou shalt not lie.”

6. [=translation and re-visitation of section 1 of 2nd part of lexeme lecture]

First we have to define - or at least explain - what in the first place these semantic circles are. I mean, they are after all ARBITRARY. Their species-limited FUNCTIONALITY - as opposed to MEANING - that is analogous to that species’ prehensile hands, is irrelevant because, being species-specific, it is not universal, it is context-dependent and therefore inherently empty. So what in actuality are these semantic circles? - they are expressions of people’s GRASPINESS. The more one lets go of this graspiness, the wider the circles are that define one’s cognition. As the mind in meditation abstains from grasping, consciousness itself ascends up into ever widening semantic circles - like the ripples of a pond’s surface broken by a thrown pebble - until at last the widest circle hits the shore and, behold, the circular waving has reached its end, and one has attained the IT - the unspeakable, that is; the divine one whose name to utter would be a blasphemy, to put it in the Hebrew way. In this way I am a nominalist up until we get to Consciousness, which I contend is the one and only Universal, for it is the only non-arbitrary circle in that it INHERENTLY encircles everything - all is contained in consciousness; it is the ultimate container, which all other containers - the sub-containers a.k.a. concepts - are contained by. Anything that can be conceived of containing the ultimate container is NOT that ultimate container, but yet more of the contained. [[[Who is it that said “The mind is bigger than the problems in it.” ???]]] “The Tao that can be talked about is not the real Tao,” states the Tao Te Ching - where, incidentally, the Tao is also referred to as a container. Ground of being, a Buddhist idea, is another good idea. But all ideas are just that - ideas a.k.a. sub-containers... That is why to call it, for example, God, would be “in vane.”


All semantic circles besides that of Consciousness are arbitrary, I have said; but this “arbitrariness” is that of the will will-nilly deciding to draw a circle here or there, of this or that size... Will (i.e, volition) is thus one aspect of consciousness... And each circle is one of the “ten thousand things,” i.e, universe of objective world, i.e, the world outside of oneself, the observed world, the objects of consciousness. This is what I meant by TRINITY.