Alternating Consciousness. From Perception to Infinities and Back to Free Will

Can we trace back consciousness, reality, awareness, and free will to a single basic structure without giving up any of them? Can the universe exist in both real and individual ways without being composed of both? This dialogue founds consciousness and freedom of choice on the basis of a new reality concept that also includes the infinite as far as we understand it. Just the simplest distinction contains consciousness. It is not static, but a constant alternation of perspectives. From its entirety and movement, however, there arises a freedom of choice being more than reinterpreted necessity and unpredictability. Although decisions ultimately involve the whole universe, they are free in varying degrees also here and now. The unity and openness of the infinite enables the individual to be creative while this creativity directly and indirectly enters into all other individuals without impeding them. A contrary impression originates only in a narrowed awareness. But even the most conscious and free awareness can neither anticipate all decisions nor extinguish individuality. Their creativity is secured.

ISBN 978-1-4942-7180-0

"Great Read. Thank you for putting your work out into a conscious space for all. Much appreciated."
Marcel P. Londt, PhD, South Africa

"Your important book entitled 'Alternating Consciousness' is very significative for our project involving creativity and social innovation research."
Professor Flàvio Filho, Brasil

"Great publication. Really contributed to my knowledge."
A. Kumar, India

Creative Commons License

The core

The core of my work can be seen as the well-known unity of opposites, but applied in a new manner and with the strongest consequence possible.

However, it seems not really helpful to conclude from there as a starting point, for every "application" has to be (and has been) reasoned independently to prove its validity. So the unity of opposites itself is more a result and becomes a “starting point” just in this way. Nevertheless, it provides a connection to philosophical traditions (Yin/Yang, Heraclitus, Cusanus, Hegel).

Competent readers can also try to lead up from Alfred North Whitehead, Ernst Cassirer or structuralism by thinking their basic ideas more strictly and synthetically. -Satori

Creative Commons License

Laws of Form: Why Spencer-Brown is missing the point

In his famous book Laws of Form, George Spencer-Brown tries to construct the world from the most simple. He begins with a simple distinction, a circle on a structureless plane for example. He does not say that this is the only way to begin, but makes the reader simply do it and see what is developing. In addition, he gives more handling instructions, which reduces the most possible to the least possible.

I focus on his beginnings – the distinction – and the way how this is interpreted by him (indeed): ”… every duality implies triplicity: what the thing is, what it isn’t, and the boundary between them.” By this the world is digitalized. Subsequently, he examines extensions (“… to recross [the boundary] is not to cross [the boundary]”) and reductions (“What a thing is and what it is not are identical in form”). In any case, the boundary remains only boundary, i.e. distinction.

However, the boundary has been created just by crossing itself: It only exists by changing the sides. If I stand still on one side, all vanishes.

But when I change the side, I must change to another. Therefore, both sides are never identical in distinction, because then the crossing, the alternation, that creates them, would vanish.

If we reduce everything to distinction (“form”) as such, as Spencer-Brown sometimes does, the distinction still must be perceived as such. This means, the alternation condenses. And this it does (without changing everything) only in the middle. So the boundary is unity in extreme, moment of identity of both sides. The alternation then takes place between the center of identity and periphery, which leads to infinitesimality structure.

What Spencer-Brown wants to rationalize out of existence, therefore, is alternation itself – the prerequisite of his whole operation! By that he simplifies (identifies) more than he says. And he does not say all that is important.

If one follows his instructions, no contradiction results. But who says, that one has to restrict oneself in this manner?

As for the extension “to recross is not to cross”: It shows that identity always points beyond itself, since strictly speaking it came into being by recrossing – there is no closed operation, the unlimited world is connected. With this even the extension of the Brownian principles is justified.

Creative Commons License

Individuality and the physical paradigm

This blog entry relates to Dynamic Existence.

The physical paradigm contains serious distortions or inconsistencies:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. "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?
Infinitesimality structure means, that there is no object in itself. Objects only condense from universal change by circumscription. This change is an alternation between individuals, and these individuals are condensations of this change, too. So neither firm objects nor objective individuals exist. There is only change or alternation in itself (structure of alternation).

Quantum physics describes another form of alternation than classical physics. There seems to be a basic unity, an elementary quantum. To perceive (or think) such a quantum, however, needs circumscription of "it", condensation of a movement. Again, there is no quantum in itself, although we treat it as such – and limit our focus on it.

How then can it be circumscribed so stable? This is the question to be asked, while not simplifying it to an object in itself (except for practical use).

In this concept there is no exclusive observer, there are only individual views (= individuals). Every view is unlimited at the end (and so are the individuals), but is limited asymptotically by self-reflection aimed at a controllable world and at building structures at all. (A continuous plenum reflects on limited structure to define itself.)

To view the world infinitesimality-structured means to think beyond elementary quantum and quantum information, because "information" is already a condensation, a permanent attuning of alternating individuals (individual views). No information is transmitted: An attunement takes place – by condensating a change, changing position, and decondensating individually. The whole process is precondensated before of course by developing a "common" language, establishing a "common" infrastructure etc., and by unknown processes, too.

Alternation is unlimited, because logically there cannot be a limit without the possibility to cross it in principle. I know that logic is thought by humans, but on the other hand thinking is seen as an appropriate tool to relate to the bigger world. It must be so, otherwise we would not (self-) exist in it. Although our thinking may be inconsistent, it cannot be meaningless to the bigger extent. Although the "ultimate" observer does not exist, individual standpoints do exist; and so does their attunement.

Infinitesimality and infinity are consequences of limitlessness with respect to the existent meaning of the individual thinking. They can be well a camouflage for unperceived structures, but they always point beyond the perceived ones and they always remain essential values to deal with.

Creative Commons License

Free will (freedom of choice)

Weighing describes a back coupling between alternative changes. This indefiniteness circumscribes an entirety and defines it thus up to an infinitesimal center. However, in a decisive situation the indefiniteness of the progress is also an indefiniteness of the situation as a whole. The alternatives are defined on the other hand as those very well. That is definiteness and indefiniteness of the situation can be separated from the decision-making process at no place, they actually arise from it. Besides, the peripheral structure of the whole and its most internal core establish an infinitesimality-structured unity. This unites definiteness and indefiniteness also totally. In this totality both are assimilated, are not even partly distinguishable. Hence, from this totality every new definiteness is freely chosen.

Creative Commons License

Reality and creation in a nutshell (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.

Creative Commons License

On the four quadrants (perspectives) of consciousness by Ken Wilber

Ken Wilber's system of four quadrants is a workable concept to put worldviews in an order, I think. Anyway, the reduction from second person to first person plural ignores the essential quality of a dialogue: When I say "you", I do not mean "we", and I also do not mean "I" or "he". These are mere aspects of the "you". The main point is the change of perspective as such, that creates the dialogue, the perception of another individual as itself and so the second-person view. I change my viewpoint to the viewpoint of the other (partly at least) and come back to a new own one and so forth.

Because this change underlies all the other quadrant views (you are only "he", when I am mainly I), it could be the quadrant in the middle or the big one beneath/encompassing the other ones.

Another problem I see in considering all quadrants equally. Who perceives the four quadrants and changes between them? Since consciousness is omnipresent, as Wilber states by himself elsewhere, the first-person view should be at the top, followed by the other three views being special aspects of the dynamic "I" (of the individual focus, the universal subjectivity). So the individual becomes a dynamic hierarchy culminating in the center of "I". It is from this perspective only, that "others" and collectives are possible in the last consequence.

The above hierarchy may be illustrated by this picture:


Meanwhile Ken Wilber has published a different explanation (consistent within its own framework) which presupposes – as most scientific concepts do – that we can't access another You completely. They say we can only approach it from its outside, from our own I.  But how then do we know that there is anything to be "approached" at all? Strictly speaking, we can't. So, all these concepts lack deeper consistency. 

Creative Commons License

Definition of infinitesimality structure

Multitude cannot exist without its oneness and oneness cannot exist without determination by multitude.

Oneness however means identity and identity in its last consequence through all „stages" is a zero point. On the other hand this infinitesimal center needs circumscription by details. So despite the details’ identity in oneness, they as individuals have to find their way into circumscription. And as individuals they contain infinitesimal centers by themselves etc. Hence the circumscription of such a center is the changing between single points.

That means an existing structure includes both extremes, the absolute identity and the absolute separation. Their unity then also has to be constituted by change - now between this common point of identity and being separated. Both are nothing at all without this change by which they are determined only. The unity built that way of oneness and multitude in turn has its infinitesimal center of identity...

The same is valid for every area on every scale. A continuum of this kind is the precondition of permanent objects. Through the omnipresent change between the extremes of identity and separation any point is immediately joined with each other as well as continuously mediated and also apart from the others.

Creative Commons License

Conclusion of the German book Die Erschaffung der Realität (The Creation of Reality)

The main argument in this book is the undeniable openness of every system to the unknown. And the fundamental question goes: What does this openness produce?

We are a part of the infinite universe and an incorporation of its wholeness. Both for us means an individualized reality, through which the universe expresses itself and on the other hand through which it is built up with. It also means our necessity, importance and indestructibility for the sum of its incorporations. Most connections among ourselves are hardly conscious for us. Meanwhile the infinitesimality structure of all consciousness guarantees not only the logical lack of inconsistency of these connections but also the freedom of choice of every individual.

Our goal by no means can be to decide completely consciously. Responsibility contains spontaneity or rather trust in a meaningful working together of the forces. We increasingly become aware of our role in the entire relationship and we learn to contribute optimally to the value fulfillment of all individuals, ourselves included. Beyond the supposed differences between objective and subjective reality, we at some point of awareness comprehend that we create our reality out of our innermost depths. While this goes on, with the love of All That Is (or God) permeating even the smallest units of the omnipresent consciousness, we are given the certainty of being not alone.

If you, dear reader, would like to convince yourself of your own power to create, then please indeed try the described methods herein to change reality, keeping your mind open and look forward to the success, that I also wish for you wholeheartedly.

Creative Commons License

Focus dynamic

Excerpts from the summarizing chapters of my German book Die Erschaffung der Realität (The Creation of Reality). This topic is developed and explained with many examples in the regular chapters of the book and also to a certain extent in its abridged version How Consciousness Creates Reality.

Perception of any object is an unique entirety, the summit of an individual maximized in a vanishing small center, and it is only through the transition into its own until then subconscious, how this individual reaches another entirety (another object). The transition can entail an effect after all, something of the preceding object, and the way back a repercussion. This way a new individual, a new summit is being circumscribed, to whom the two former ones are different or not conscious.
Do several objects exist in this consciousness then at all? Yes, some exist in it, but no, they are not the same ones as previously, when we considered them individually. Rather, the change from one to the other one circumscribes an approximation of each object, valid for their totality. This approximation conceals the differences and the permanent movement between the viewpoints [respectively individuals]. [...]
What will we find however, if we lift the veil?
We reveal a world of seemingly irreconcilable individuals, that are in touch with each other just infinitely little, that are however communicating together by bringing new elementary individuals into the game [...]. Absurd? Only if we forget the world is not reducible to moments. The individuals would be zeros if they did not change into each other and existed only in these transitions - as structured entireties, which merely increase in their infinitesimal centers to extremes of themselves. The world is a dynamic structure, whose focuses change at each position more or less consciously, but always completely “to each other” (there is simply no clear word for it!), consequently they are directly united in most diverse ways - an infinitesimality structure. [...]
Consciousness forms an unity with the subconscious as such in the end, into which it fluctuates constantly, however. At the most it can remember gloomily the deeper conditions because it cannot process them in its current focus consciously. But so the consciousness of the creator decides dynamically after all, what will happen next - also regarding its expansion -, so to speak collectively with its momentary subconscious phases. What it chooses consciously, enters the decisions of all its other aspects, and the result is the product of their exchange. We sense this cooperation with the subconscious, we feel our holomovement between outside and inside - we are aware of our more comprehensive creativity.
"Subconscious determination" is therefore the influence of subconsciously made decisions, in which we were involved ourselves, but in the face of those even now we are not helpless. [...] 

Creative Commons License