+ +

  + -   + ±

The New Dialectics
The Dialectical Phenomenology of Michael Kosok

  - +    - -   - ±
  ± +   ± -   ± ±


 

THE DIALECTICAL MATRIX:

Towards Phenomenology as a Science
 

Back to Homepage





























back to top































back to top







 


Part 2

A Presentation of Dialectical Phenomenology in Matrix Form

 

The entire eidos of dialectic phenomenology, as presented in Diagram III, is mapped out if one can experience this matrix as a dynamics of immediacy and not as a reflective form which “happens” to have a content that is separable from this form. To be sure, form and content are distinct, but are not separable within a truly paradoxical context. Thus, our ever‑present origin is the basic pre‑categorical “element” e, namely, immediacy and its dynamics of non‑linearity — a totality in which to be formed means to become transformed. From this, e', or the primary triadic cycle of phenomenology, follows, a cycle which can be called the basic “formation-principle” of dialectic‑phenomenology. This principle refers, at once to both the content of a phenomenology of consciousness in which subjectivity, as the non‑linear field itself, reveals its activity to be objectivity, or its linearizable events, thus making consciousness a mutual “field event” resonance, and the form of the dialectic logic itself, namely, positivity, negativity, and their mutuality as transitivity. Thus, the notion of positivity and subjectivity, on the one hand, as the immediate initial mode, and negativity and objectivity as the following mediated mode, on the other, are inseparably linked together. The first doublet refers to the totality of immediacy or “unrestricted presence” as a field or “space” of elements. The second doublet then refers to the mediated, restricted, and now linearizable or determined events which occur and define the field, and thus it constitutes the “spacetime” history of the field. (Furthermore, within any dialectic matrix structure, reflective of phenomenological consciousness as it must be, the positive term is always present as an inseparable non‑linear field of immediacy, and the negative its determination and distinction as a mediated, linearizable event or set of events.) In the primary triad in Diagram III we have referred to the first term — the field itself — as self or S, and the second as its world or W. The third term as a “self-world mutuality” finally regards all activity and events as self‑activity: and thus, it is a self‑mediated immediacy represented as a self‑linearizing totality. A field is always a field of events, and all events are always events within a field. In this way, subjectivity is not regarded as individual ego‑consciousness, and objectivity is in turn not some kind of hard, neutral matter, totally indifferent to subjectivity. Subjectivity in its broadest sense is the inseparable field of totality or “wholeness” present within and among any kind of event, distinction, or process, and objectivity is the co‑relative particularities manifesting itself within that field,[1] and this cuts across all forms of awareness (e.g., mathematical, physical, personal, social). The self‑world conscious­ness‑process is thus seen to be a self‑actualizing activity, not stemming from a mythological identity in the form of a self‑conscious ego, totally complete and therefore “super-human” (i.e., not trans‑human), nor stemming from an equally mythological identity in the form of indifferent matter which is only an external and thus accidental juxtaposition of fixed and mediated “atoms” or “forms” void of true self‑activity: self‑activity is the activity of self, or anything “becoming-itself”, and describes the consciousness‑process, which, when it becomes self‑conscious (self‑activity itself self‑actualized in a second order non‑linearity given here as e'') expresses itself through a community of egos, capable, however, of even deeper, richer, and more subtle forms of awareness (e.g., e''', e'''' ) not yet fully realized.

After e appears as our ever‑present “element”, and e’ as its “formation-principle” in the form of a triad or cycle, e'' now appears as our basic “transformation-principle”, namely, a transformation of a cycle or triad itself, into a triad of triads or a cycle of cycles called the matrix. (Actually, the cycles of cycles are unending in number, and there are an infinite number of multi‑dimensional matrices beyond the second term e'', but nevertheless, e'' represents the first explicit appearance of transformation.) Thus, the sequence e, e', e'', taken as a singular dynamics of immediacy, spells out what it means for any element, in being formed (first cycle), to become transformed (a cycle of the cycle), where this element e is precategorical, an immediacy, and hence, the totality totalizing itself through self‑mediation. One cannot ask in an abstract way, therefore, about the “number” of e’s or  immediacies with which to “start”, as though there were a choice. Dialectic phenomenology is radically “existential”, meaning that one starts with what is present, and anything else which appears (in the form of imagination, thought, feeling, sensation, activity, violent reversals of emotion or quiet contemplation of thought‑forms) both follows from whatever was present as its transformation within a non‑linear field, and at the same time — as a linearizable mediation and distinction — it displays its own modalities of immediacy relative to its particular perspective. Universality of immediacy and uniqueness of localizing mediation are themselves dialectic co‑relations, each one manifesting itself through the other. In the deepest sense, there is no determined and mediated beginning or end, either temporally or spatially, and thus, no initial e and no final e, any e being an expression of the e‑ing process, the particular form of e (e.g., e'') depending upon the depth of self‑actualization and transformation actually present: necessity is the existential unfoldment of what is.

Looking at our e'' matrix now as a double‑dynamics of immediacy, we must always be aware of a simultaneous two‑dimensional modality of dialectic unfolding; and it is this more than one dimensional modality of dialectics representing the eidos of transformation and becoming which is the heart of our thesis: it is possible to present dialectics as a form of phenomenological relations in such a way that any particular science of consciousness (e.g., mathematics, physics, and the social sciences), as well as the phenomenology of consciousness itself, can utilize this form (or rather, “transform”) for a “re-evaluation of its values”, i.e., for an evaluation of its emerging categories of experience if these categories are experienced as a dynamic process of appearance.

 

 






























back to top




























back to top




























back to top




























back to top




























back to top




























back to top




























back to top




























back to top




























back to top




























back to top




























back to top




























back to top




























back to top




























back to top




























back to top




























back to top




























back to top




























back to top




























back to top




























back to top




























back to top




























back to top




























back to top




























back to top




























back to top




























back to top




























back to top




























back to top




























back to top




























back to top




























back to top




























back to top





















back to top

Thus, in mathematics, topology as a general theory of non‑linear fields or spaces can be regarded as the primary identity, relative to which algebra, as a theory of linearly conceived sets of elements, then appears as its primary mediated opposition (giving rise to many forms of algebraic topology and topological algebra). On a second level, analysis (theory of calculus) and synthetics (probability theory) emerge as higher modalities of co‑determination based upon the previous two: analysis studies the field or space which exists relative to the distinctions or elements present, making all elements appear as limit‑points, or neighborhoods, of the space they are in, while conversely, synthetics studies the elements or distinctions present, relative to their distribution or measure throughout the space in which they function, making the entire space or field appear as a function of each distinction present. In analysis or calculus, the whole is mapped into each part, while in synthetics or probability, each part is mapped out into the whole: in analysis each part is a function of the whole it is in, while in synthetics, the whole is, in turn, a function of each part. Mathematics, and hence mathematical logic, must be dialectically based upon topology and not algebra (algebra detailing its mediations), bringing the “monad” theory of calculus and the “multipole” theory of probability — limit and measure — into the very nature of what “truth values” mean.

Similarly, in physics, energy‑fields, or the study of space‑time‑matter “continua”, would be the primary immediacy, relative to which particle‑force dynamics appears as its primary mediation and opposition, such that, on a second level, relativity and quantum mechanics automatically emerge as higher level co‑determinations. As in mathematics, this will also generate that science in terms of four essential areas (forming the four basic opposites of a second order matrix). In relativity, no absolute space or field exists: the space‑time field as a whole is only a whole relative to each part or system, each part mapping the whole or viewing the whole in terms of its own perspective, while in quantum mechanics no absolute part or element exists as a completely determined identity: each part is only a part relative to its distribution as a function throughout all of space, making the whole space a function of each part in turn.

Finally, in the social sciences, the primary immediacy would be the inter‑subjective community present as a universal field at a certain space‑time epoch, while the primary opposite co‑determining this human‑field would be the individual centers of awareness qua uniqueness of perspective. On a second level, their co‑relation would give rise to both a particular form of social ethics, and a particular form of individual morality, the first expressing each individual in so far as he or she is a function of community values, while the second expresses the community in turn as a function of each individual’s awareness. Hence, ethics and morality are seen to be co‑oppositional: an ethics without morality (or a morality based only upon ethics) would make a fluid society a rigid body that appears to be stable but insensitive to changing conditions, while morality without ethics (or an ethics based only upon morality) would make a fluid society a chaotic mass that is hypersensitive, but incapable of duration as a community. The whole question of “duties” versus “rights” becomes dialectically transformed when it is seen that both are only functions of each other: a society becomes conservative and alienated to the degree to which its ethics (“ideals”, “ideology”) is no longer in phase with the practicing morality of the individuals, and conversely, it is only those individuals whose individual morality at the same time projects a consistent community ethics who are able to act as revolutionary agents for transforming a conservative state back into a dynamic one. The conservative subordinates his morality to a public ethics (“law and order”) while the rebel subordinates his ethics to a private morality (undisciplined activity): it is only the revolutionary in each society that transcends being either a conservative or a rebel by neither wanting to merely preserve and affirm what is present nor wanting to merely cancel and negate what is present, but rather by wanting to elevate and transform à la Hegel’s aufheben, which elevates, preserves, and cancels) what is given into a state of something being‑given, recognizing both the contutuity and discontinuity between past and future, The revolutionary lives in the present, neither romanticizing the past, nor idealizing the future, nor compromising both into an indifferent “herd morality”.

Now in all three cases — mathematical, physical, and social awareness — the essential aspect which makes them dialectical is that the identity‑logic of non‑dialectic consciousness has been transformed. Thus, it is not the linearly defined symbol or point, the isolated material particle, or the individual ego which serves as the basis for a dynamics of immediacy. It is the non‑linear subjective field (topology, energy‑fields, and communities) which is the appropriate immediacy relative to which algebra, particle mechanics, and individual egos appear as the very way in which these fields must objectify themselves, and in so doing, generate second order co‑oppositional structures in which each must become a function of itself through the other. In all cases, the central two‑level dialectic is between a universality which determines itself through uniqueness, and a uniqueness which determines itself through universality: it is precisely this dialectic co‑determination which is difficult to grasp and which makes the various identities appearing within the sciences seem to be contradictory instead of paradoxical. The function of the dialectic matrix is to re‑evaluate all contradictions among values and identities, in order to recover their non‑linear paradoxical nature. Finally, since this matrix is existential, it must not be viewed as an eternal form, but rather as a dynamic transform. Logically, the matrix is to ordinary logic as the calculus is to algebra: it studies all points as transition points, and this must include the matrix itself when, upon reflection, it requires new insights in order to overcome the inevitable linearization any transform takes when it also appears as an object of awareness.

In this way, one can now start a dynamic reinterpretation of Hegel’s Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences, based upon a dialectic phenomenology of consciousness, recognizing that the distinctions into Logic, Nature, and Spirit are but linearizations of the non‑linear field of phenomenological subject‑objectivity, relative to each of which the entire non‑linear phenomenology appears (a phenomenology which Hegel first presented in his Phenomenology of the Spirit). In the Encyclopedia, therefore, subjectivity as such appears as Logic or “Essence’’, objectivity as such appears as Nature or “Existence”, and their mutuality as such appears as Spirit or “Reality”.[3] In our brief matrix analysis of the sciences, the mathematical one would set the stage for Logic, the physical one the stage for Nature, and the social one the stage for Spirit, all three of which, together would represent a higher order detailing into particular sciences of the general dialectic‑phenomenology of subject‑objectivity now under consideration (i.e., the phenomenology in Diagram III). However, in matrix dialectic, no Absolute appears as a final result, the only “end” being the very activity of dialectic transformation continually emerging at any stage. Paradox, as an Absolute, is self‑negative and hence, not an Absolute but only a process of transition.[4]

Turning now specifically to the two level matrix of dialectic phenomenology mapped out in Diagram III, we first perceive the “kernel” of the matrix as a set of four opposites: the non‑linear field itself called self or S as an immediate posit, its world or W — which is its dialectical negation — as an immediate posit, and then the self as mediated and the world as mediated. But with the self or S itself a first level immediacy and positive, and the world or W a first level mediation and negative, this makes the first opposite term (term 1) a second level assertion (or posited immediacy) of a first level assertion and the second opposite (term 2) a second level assertion of a first level negation. On the other hand, the third opposite term (term 4) is a second level med­iation or negation of a first level assertion, and the fourth opposite (term 5) is, finally, a second level negation of a first level negation. (In logical terms, S, first appearing as a posited S, and a not S, or (S) and (not S), now appears as a double posited four term structure, written respectively as ((S)), ((not S)), (not (S)), (not (not S)).) Since posited immediacy and counter‑posited mediation, or the positive and negative, are mutually coupled on the first level in a singular transitive (self‑mediated, self‑negated) relation in which each is the other’s co‑defining contrast and completion, and since on any level, to posit means to “leave present” that which is (hence, focus or fix into position that which is being formed), while on the other hand, to negate always means “not to leave present” that which is (and thus, reveal the complementary contrast to that which is, namely, that to which whatever is, is being related and thus transformed), this means that to posit a positive on a second level will mean repeating as present a positive; to posit a negative will mean repeating as present a negative; to negate a positive will reveal its negative contrast; and finally, to negate a negative will reveal its positve contrast. Repeating as present a positive, called self, gives us the self, in self‑form, or the self‑itself (i.e., the self as primary and immediate). Thus term one, called ++e, is symbolized S(S), the initial S within the parentheses being the first level positive, and the second S to the left, the second level positive. Repeating as present a negative, called world, gives us the world, in world‑form, or the world‑itself (i.e., the world as primary and immediate). This is term two, called +‑e, and is symbolized by W(W). Then, term four reveals the negative contrast of a positive, and thus gives us the self, in world‑form (i.e., the world as derived or mediated from the self) and is symbolized by W(S). Finally, term five reveals the positive contrast of a negative, and thus gives us the world in self‑form (i.e., the self as derived or mediated from the world) and is symbolized by S(W). As indicated, these four opposites are referred to, respectively, as “I”, “it”, “me”, and “Thou” in order to indicate the relative positions of subject, object, subject as object, and object as subject in simple grammatical form reflective of a phenomenological orientation, and co‑related to a logical form showing their completeness of scope on a second order level (i.e. — the sequence 5(S), W(W), W(S), S(W)). Thus, the dialectic kernel of a second level dialectic reveals subjectivity in two complementary (non‑identical but mutual) forms — the “I” and “Thou”, — while objectivity also takes on two complementary forms — the “it” and “me”, — such that all four are interdefined at once through each other in a double level non‑linearity, and not presented as a linear set of four self‑defined and separable elements.

On a first level dialectic, there is only the non‑objectified self or field of subjectivity in relation to the non‑subjectified world or events of objectivity: there is no “I”, “it”, “me”, or “Thou”, but only self and world in a one‑dimensional and hence, qualitatively different modality of relation. (Self and world looks like “I” and “it”, but the former pair is a complete first order relation, while the second is only a partial, incomplete aspect of a second order relation.) Now, a second order dialectic focuses upon the simple and immediate first order dialectic called the consciousness‑process of self‑world mutuality (SW or e') and by regarding this as a posited immediacy, delimits the consciousisess‑activity of self‑world immediacy into only an immediate or posited form called +e' (term 1') in which the posited self is now the I, and the posited world now the it, in contrast to a now mediated form of the self‑world immediacy called ‑e' (term 2') in which the mediated self is now the ego or “me”, and the mediated world is now its commune or “Thou”. Thus, in moving from e to e' to e", the non‑linear totality of immediacy (the “origin” e) is progressively self‑defining and self‑transforming itself through non‑linear “feedback”: its first self‑negation is “self and world”, and the self‑negation of this self‑negation is the “I, it, me, Thou” dialectic.

               One can grasp this self-development as a singular dynamic by noting that the e'' of a second level dialectic starts with e' or the self-mediated immediacy called consciousness-activity (which expresses the overall original immediacy e as a process of being), and creates its inherent contrasts through +e' called a posited immediate consciousness, and -e' called a negating mediated consciousness, as a higher form, respectively, of +e or simple “immediacy”, and e or simple “mediation”. This makes e'' a self-mediated consciousness or a self-mediated-self-mediated-immediacy! Thus, whereas +e and -e were called S and W respectively, +e' and -e'  are now called S' and W' respectively: immediate (direct) consciousness of “I seeing it” is a new self or subjectivity called S', while mediated (social) consciousness of “me being seen by a Thou” is    a new world or objectivity, called W', making “I seeing it, as a me being seen by a Thou”, — an “I and Thou” mutual resonance, a higher form of self-world mutuality called S'W' (term 3'). Now this unity is also called “genuine” self-consciousness, in that consciousness here is not only a matter of a self-revealing-world operation, as with e', but a self-revealing-self through a world type of operation, the “Thou” or objectified subjectivity being the essential content of a second order revelation: what is particularly human is the ability to experience subjectivity‑in‑the‑world as a “face” facing‑you, and not only be a subjectivity within its world (as we imagine low‑order animal behavior to be), although all subjectivity is a revelation of and within a world, the only difference being the depth of what that world in turn reveals. Thus, a still higher order feedback‑reflection into e''' can be shown to reveal not only a world, as e', and a self or face in that world, as e'' but a self revealing a world, within which it would be directly aware of not only a self, but a self‑in‑turn‑revealing‑a‑world: e''' would be a “self, which in revealing a world, reveals in that world, a self‑revealing‑a‑world”: it would be a direct consciousness of a direct consciousness, or seeing‑the‑world‑through‑a‑consciousness‑in‑the‑world — literally, seeing the world through another’s eyes or face, not only seeing the face. It would reveal a world within a world through the subjectivity of that world. It would result in one’s being able to see oneself as an objective ego within the world relative to the world revealed by the subjectivity in the world. Yet even this is not the “end” of self‑reflective non‑linear feedback. In e''', e' can appear as “I‑seeing‑you”, e'' can appear as “I‑seeing‑you‑as‑a‑Thou‑seeing‑me”, while e''' itself can mean ''I‑seeing‑you‑as‑a‑Thou‑seeing‑me‑perceiving‑Thou‑see­ing‑me‑as‑an‑I‑seeing‑you”, which increases the reflective binding between centers of awareness. Thus, as is promised in true love, a true “I and Thou” resonance can produce, if explicated to higher dimensions, a fantastic non‑linear transformation of consciousness (not too stable in our human world to date), in which consciousness neither merges one with the other into an indistinct “we”, nor appears isolated as two “others” facing each other. Rather, consciousness experiences a heightening, paradoxically, of both self and other‑self awareness, each one at the same time receiving back to him whatever reflection or awarenes moves out, thus increasing self‑identity; and, with whatever awareness returns, each is in turn able to perceive the other’s perception of him, thus increasing the awareness of what is facing him in the world. We see, then, that both the uniqueness of any awareness and the universality between awareness are coupled and heightened in a non‑linear consciousness. As Buber poetically describes, a genuine I and Thou resonance is precisely the ability not to stop at any one reflection or movement affecting a localization of any subjectivity into an “it” or “thing”, but rather, to continue the cycling and re‑cycling of feedback, thus perceiving the fact that it is the very non‑linearity of relation-without‑end, or mediation, which expresses all direct immediacy of experience, all objectification being but a further means of increasing the potentiality of reflection through that objectivity should the power of awareness present be capable of realizing this. This avoids both an indistinct inseparability of “absorption’’, and a distinct separation into “alienation’’: a paradoxicality of “inseparable distinctions” heightens distinctions only to the degree to which it increases relations, and vice versa.

However, before concluding this presentation of the matrix dynamics of phenomenology perceived as a singular immediacy of continual transformation, it is important to note that merely knowing of the possibility of further feedback does not produce that feedback, even though these possibilities can appear within one’s awareness at certain times to be nore than abstract possibilities ‑ i.e., they can appear as the beginnings of realization. (This will be discussed later, when we return to this problem from a different approach.) In particular, a two level awareness, starting with the four elements “I”, “it”, “me”, “Thou” generated from the two element self‑world duality by self‑negation or self‑duplication, will in turn require its self‑duplication, this time into the same terms first posited as immediacies, the same four terms then being counter‑posited as negated mediations, producing a total of eight newly defined coupled opposites (and 27 terms requiring a three‑dimensional matrix running simultaneously in all three directions producing topologically newer forms of relation since 3n = 27 for n = 3). One cannot merely take the “I” and “Thou” modalities and linearly conceive of further extensions of them into e' without a redefinition of meaning. Matrix dialectics is not a structuralism of mapping out pre‑defined terms, but a non‑linear experience of forms, forming, and thus, transforming. What is required is a newer mode of awareness in which the totality of e' can be perceived on its own immediate terms. Thus, you might know abstractly what it is to say “I know that you know that I know that you know ...”, but to experience this as a singular immediacy — intuition, if you will, is quite something else. This requires an expansion of the power and scope of awareness. Thus, with S' as the “I-it” coupling, and W' as the “me-Thou” counter‑coupling, there will arise in e' a W' (S') and a S'(W') (just as S and W gave rise to W(S) and S(W) in e'). The first means an “I-it” capable of acting like a “me-Thou”, and the second means a “me-Thou” capable of acting like an “I-it”, in such a way that all terms become redefined. One would have to define and conceive of +e'' as an immediate form of self‑consciousness, and -e'' as a mediated form of self‑consciousness, just as +e' was immediate consciousness and -e' was mediated consciousness. This problem, however, cannot be discussed here, but it is mentioned in order to present the context within which e'' is to be grasped as a dynamic of immediacy.

We are now ready for a complete nine term analysis of the e form of dialectic phenomenology. We shall start with the kernel of the matrix, namely, the four basic oppositions (terms 1, 2, 4, and 5) and first observe how the four simple unities called 3, 6, 7, and 8, emerge as partial subtotalities, and finally, how 9 as a unity of unities expresses the totality of the entire matrix as a singular immediacy. We shall run through the entire dynamics three times: first, relative to the items within the four simple unities listed as “a”, dealing with the fourfold nature of consciousness; second, relative to the items called “b”, dealing with the philosophies of these four modalities; and third, relative to the items designated by “c”, dealing with the psychological states of these modalities.

To begin with, the four simple unities of consciousness (terms 3, 6, 7, and 8) automatically appear as a mapping out of the four possible and dialectically necessary integrations between self and world that can appear if both are capable of being primary or immediate. Number 7 is the one‑sided simple term unity in which only the self is primary (and the world appears derived), while number 8 is its inverse one‑sided simple term unity in which only the world is primary (the self appears derived). On the other hand, number 3 is the one‑sided double term unity in which both self and world are primary, while lastly, number 6 is the counter‑one‑sided double term unity in which neither self nor world are primary. In logic, if both A and notA are regarded as primary immediacies — e.g., posited as true and posited as false — this would unfold: only A; only not A; both A and not A; and neither A nor not A as the four relations possible. (This is not the same as in a one dimensional world in which only A exists as a posited, immediate primary, and not A as mediated and derived: here only true or “present” would exist as an immediate term, while not‑true or “not-present” could not be replaced by the term false, or “absent”, false being something not true regarded as a new term or immediacy. Thus I and not I, or true and not true are not contradictions, but two sides of a singular paradoxical immediacy. So much for the liar paradox!)

However, one can at once see that these four possibilities or unities are not dialectically complete, for what still remains unintegrated is the fixed opposition between the self as only primary and immediate, and the self as only derived and mediated (and the same unintegration exists for the world). Only by grasping the self which is paradoxically both immediate and mediated (namely, self‑mediated) by grasping the opposites along the diagonal of the matrix relating self to self and the counter diagonal relating world to world, rather than by grasping the horizontal or vertical unities which only relate self and world — only by this does integration become possible. Now one can at once transcend the alienation of self into two opposed forms — an alienation which would prevent genuine self‑consciousness — and also see that it is only through the world that the self achieves self‑transcendence by expressing a double‑dialectics in which the self, revealing a world, reveals itself through that world as a singular act of self‑revelation and self‑transformation. In term 9, therefore, self and world appear in mutual transformation, each revealing the other as its completion and transform, in order to exist as a form in the first place. (In logic, this means that A and not A, appearing as T and F, and not only as T and not T, must also be seen to mutually define each other, but now as part of a completed two‑dimensional paradoxicality — i.e., we have here a double‑level liar paradox, or a paradox within a paradox! This also means that only term 9 gives us the genuine paradoxical totality, and that actually all four simple unities such as 3, 6, 7, and 8, are qua‑partial perspectives, in the mode of diction or contradiction, none of them alone expressing either self or world as capable of being paradoxically both immediate and mediated in a state of self‑mediation. It merely appears that unity 3, having both S and W, T and F, or A and not A as two immediacies, is the only contradiction. However, underlying all partial perspectives is the state of contradictory, schizophrenic consciousness, or identity fixation, as we shall see once we study item c) appearing within unity 3.

Seeing the entire structure of the nine terms as a singular logical dynamics, we can now proceed to the individual terms, always keeping in mind their non‑linear field within which they function, meaning, in effect, that, as in the calculus, any one term is that term only in so far as it exhibits as an integral aspect of its nature the necessity to pass over into adjoining terms: dialectic necessity in matrix theory is equivalent to limit‑theory in analysis. (Further, a probability theory must also exist, in that no one matrix can exhaust the determined appearance of any one term such as “I” or “Thou”: these terms are distributed over the entire field of possible relations within and between matrices of any order, making any entire Gestalt capable of always manifesting in some strong or weak sense any one of its members.)

Relative to the items appearing within the “a” subsection of 3, 6, 7, and 8, we see that the direct unity of self and world — both primary and immediate — is given by unity number 3. This is the “I-it” mutuality, in which it is important to realize that the “it” here referred to is any kind of distinction or set of distinctions regarded as an immediate and unlocalized presence, and thus not perceived as a mediated structure or thing. The immediacy of the world appearing as “it” thus has reference to sense‑qualities, but not to object‑perceptions, to energy fields, but not to particles, to immediate notions, but not to definitions. A distinction within a non‑linear field need not be localized, but can pervade the entire field, like an electron in quantum physics, described as a wave‑function covering all of space. This immediate and direct consciousness is one in which both “I” and “it” appear unrestricted in range and simultaneously co-present, the “I” being the field itself. This type of awareness (+e') is also referred to as “uroboric” or primordial awareness in Jungian circles, i.e., an awareness bordering on the pre‑conscious state of mere consciousness activity (e') in which sleep and wakefulness are inseparable — a type of emergence from a “collective unconscious” wherein ego and commune are not distinctly focused into awareness, and thus a “trance” consciousness in which subjective field and objective content are only co‑immediate and not co‑mediated into relief. However, within a double‑level matrix of awareness, number 3 unity is not a genuine immediate self‑world awareness, for it is only posited immediacy in opposition to a developing mediated consciousness (unity 6), both of which are necessary to express the true state of singular immediacy called e'' itself, and represented by unity 9. Within e', self and world do form a genuine immediacy called the consciousness process of field‑event resonance. However, this realization is only evident in retrospect for us who have already developed a well formed second‑level awareness of ego and commune: it is only possible for those forms which have not yet developed ego and commune, e.g., pre‑man, early infancy, and animal awareness to different degrees. Even further, the original e, before e' — thus, the e continually present as that which is being evolved — would be the entire universe regarded in its immediate totality, hence, totally void of any form of mediated appearance, all forms being inseparably in balance (i.e., the ultimate void of Zen).

The next unity, number 6, is the mediated form of awareness known as “social consciousness”. Here we have an awareness in which the mutually unrestricted co‑immediate unity of self and world reveals its other side to be a mutually restricted co‑mediated unity of self and world, and hence a self in world form (ego) and a world in self form (commune). Relative to only this perspective of total mediation, everything appears restricted and in category form, including the immediacies of “I” and “it”: “immediacy” and “mediation”, “self” and “world”, “essence” and “existence” — all appear as only mutually co‑mediated, hence, contrasting, categories separated by a mutually exclusive boundary zone. Unlike direct consciousness, wherein the “I” is the unlocated center relative to which all events constitute its world (including material objects, mathematical equations, feelings, people), a world whose content is as unrestricted as the unrestricted “I” — unlike this, subjectivity in social consciousness only appears as a mediated and external field or context — the other relative to which and within whose field all objects and distinctions now appear as a mediated content of its external subjectivity, the ego being the felt center of this external subjectification. In social consciousness, all is always “being seen”, the centripetal-type “Thou-me” awareness being, as such, a direct inversion of the outwardly oriented centrifugal‑type “seeing” mode of the “I-it” awareness. Therefore, it is within this modality of consciousness that the immediate world of “it” appears as a world of things, i.e., a world of mediated objects, each object appearing as a type of localized particle of “in-itself-ness”, possessing an impenetrable, non‑rational “quality” just as the ego, or “me”, is experienced to be: in this world, objects “suffer” forces on them, and they resist with their intrinsic inertia. Along with this inversion, the immediate field of “I”‑ness likewise appears inverted: “I”‑ness, just as any subjectivity seen only as a mediated presence can merely be felt as a type of mediated and external space of presence, i.e., a vacuum or void.

Social man, in opposition to uroboric man, appears only within an external or public space, and only relative to the society of subjective relations which determine the movement of the individual psyches. Relative to this perspective, the primary “I” itself can appear as a type of subjectivity, mediated into an “irrational” or “subjective” entity called the “id”, the world in turn being its objective location, with the ego emerging out of this id as a result of external objective awareness, and the super‑ego appearing within the id as a result of the external subjectivity of the commune instilling itself within the id as its conscience and “control center”. Social evolution in time and space, then, takes place within the public time of social consciousness, in opposition to what appears as a type of timeless uroboric field, out of which socialization means determination, clarity, and significance. As all events appear indeterminate and spontaneous relative to immediate consciousness, social consciousness spells the beginning of a class structure: roles, personality, and group‑identity come into being, as well as a continual struggle of egos to both express and overcome the external subjectification which defines and delimits the immediacy of direct awareness. Social consciousness, as such, brings security from disorder, yet the suffocation of spontaneity.

Before concluding this section, it is important to distinguish the modality of the subjective “I-me” complex from the objective “it-Thou” one. The “me” of an “I” is an ego and a specific objectified subjectivity having feelings and thoughts. However, phenomenologically, the “Thou” appearing from the unrestricted world and not from a restricted, mechanistic ensemble of isolated things or atoms in a void — does not prima facie have to take on ego form. Subjectivity is a field‑resonance condition, and any ego or object appearing as a delimited entity or mediated “it” can develop in response to the resonant relations available from the field of subjectivity — the “Thou” field ‑ it is functioning within. Naturally, the depths of resonant feedback between object and field, or ego and subjectivity possible, is a function of the type of “Thou” field available, and this in turn is a function of the “it” structure any particular “Thou” field is an expression of, remembering that the “Thou” is the world in self-form. If this “it” structure includes ego structures themselves, higher order communes of relation are possible than are from merely non‑ego “it” structures. Thus, as Buber points out so well in his famous “I and Thou”, a rock, a tree, an animal, a person, a society, or the entire universe can function as “Thou”. “I”‑ness is subjectivity, or a field of presence experiencing directly, and “Thou”‑hood is subjectivity being experienced: “it”‑ness is objectivity, or events within a field directly experienced, and “me”‑ness is objectivity being experienced. All four forms are mutually conditioned, each one already displaying within it all the others with which it co‑functions.

Thus, both direct and social consciousness (“I-it” and “Thou-me” modalities) co‑function together to express consciousness as an “I” and “Thou” resonance, but one is so used to being subjected and enslaved by an isolated “Thou”, against which an equally isolated “I”‑ness rebels, that these two modalities continually contradict each other rather than complement each other in paradoxicality. The reason for this contradiction stems from the “brainwashing” our own subjectivity undergoes when being raised within a commune that is class‑oriented and not responsive to the genuine needs of individuals as individuals. All revolutionaries have to be against class structure, and this is the significance of the Marxist formulation of Hegelian dialectic. Ironically, however, the revolutionaries themselves tend to express class‑transcendence relative to the inherited class structure within which they are raised. As a result, they either become conservative, dogmatic revolutionaries — Stalinists — wanting to substitute an anti‑class structure as a new class structure itself (hence, a new ideology and “idealism” such as one‑way Party dictatorships), or they tend to become romantic revolutionaries — unenlightened anarchists — wanting only to negate any kind of group or class structure, and not dialectically transcend it. Both “class” and “anti-class” are two sides of the same paradox: one must come to recognize class‑structure as an evolutionary‑revolutionary process of change which means that it is not group identity relations and technology which must be fought against, but the humanization and flexibility of these relations which must be fought for by means of multi‑dimensional feedback structures and a heightening of responsibility between groups, both through education and a revolutionary change in the social‑political‑economic class relations reflective of this feedback.

However, within an alienated, class‑oriented society that is not revolutionized and thus relative to only a mediated social awareness (unity 6), both subjectivity and objectivity appear passive and externalized: both are only being experienced. To those who function mainly in this mode, immediate, direct experience of almost any kind is lacking. Everything becomes a “game”, including “war-games”, “help-your-neighbor-games”, “revolutionary-games”, worst of all being the “game-game”, i.e., the institutionalizing of a universal “game-theory” as the fundamental principle of operation — “what-it-is-all-about-in-the-first-place.” To these people, subjectivity is only a set of social norms, and objectivity is only a passive collection of mediated things. As a result, objectivity and “it”‑ness are reduced to things, or a herd, a collection, a set of things. This includes people, feelings, symbols, and thoughts. Subjectivity, on the other hand, is alienated into an external control center of “big Brother”, be it called Mother, Father, Enemy, the State, Dictator, Money, or God. This conservatism and restriction of the conventional herd‑man functioning as a norm‑compulsive individual is in direct opposition to the unrestricted claims of direct consciousness, which, being unrestricted, is a counter‑conservatism and a counter‑normalcy state of impulsive behavior, not a genuine immediacy and spontaneity which, being truly immediate, free, and radically indeterminate, must be beyond both determinations — i.e., that of being at liberty and unbounded, and that of being secure and bounded. In the last analysis, both compulsive, normative behavior, seeking bonds, and impulsive behavior (counter‑compulsive), destroying bonds — both the establishment conservative and anti‑establishment rebel (the Camel and the Lion for Nietzsche) — are compulsive states of restriction: true freedom is beyond any compulsive limitation of fixed identity, and this includes the freedom to be secure, bounded, and “normal”, as well as the freedom to become free of bonds, unbounded, and “direct”, depending upon the situation involved (the “new beginning” of the Child, for Nietzsche). It also means not falling into the one‑dimensional, “liberal” trap of compromise, seeking a new form of bondage: bondage now to a meta‑bond which says that a “golden mean” between the opposites of bondage and non‑bondage must be preserved at all costs. This is but another mediation and compulsion, and offers no true freedom for subjectivity to be both “well-behaved” and “not well-behaved”: revolution is not a game!

Appearing alongside of — and, therefore, paradoxically to the two modalities of direct and social consciousness, we find the two complementary “introreflected” ones called subjective consciousness (the “I-me” unity which regards only the self as primary, given as term 7), and objective consciousness (the “it-Thou” counter‑unity which takes only the world as primary, given as term 8). Subjective consciousness is the personal modality of awareness, the modality of an active subjectivity perceiving a passive objectivity, or an objectivity as derived and dependent. Like immediate consciousness, subjective consciousness works from the direct self, but unlike immediate consciousness, it perceives passively a world that is its product and not actively a world which is itself. In subjective consciousness, the world is not omnipresent with the subject and thus, unrestricted: it is, rather, contained within it. The “I” appears as a womb, a universal id which generates an “ego-body” as its objectification. Superficially, subjective consciousness looks like the e' state in which self was primary and world derived or mediated. But in e' the self was not an “I”, and the world not its “me”, or ego. Furthermore, with subjective consciousness, there exists an objective consciousness, parallel and coordinate to it, which must be taken into account in order to express genuine immediacy (now as e''). Thus, in subjective consciousness, all objects appear as ego‑like or ego‑derived entities participatory of feeling states and thoughts, for no truly primary “it”‑world is recognized. Finally, in subjective consciousness, no genuine “other” or “Thou” can appear, and a modality of solipsism is involved. The perspective of subjective consciousness, however, is vital for an overall dialectic phenomenology, for relative to this mode, one becomes sensitized to the degree to which subjectivity as an immediacy, can and does act as a generating field of presence, relative to which all distinctions appear dependent as its activity. All creative people must pass through periods of intensification, wherein one lives, for a while, as the Creator, experiencing the forms that evolve as the very expression of his being the field of presence. Thus, with subjective consciousness, we enter the personal world of subjective time and the boudoir of rich feeling and inspirational fire, which, when it is functioning within an integrated overall e'' state, is but the dialectic of direct and social consciousness between self and world, co‑appearing within the self and not projected into the self as a poor image from without. In dialectic phenomenology, both the whole, “self-and-world”, and its parts, self and world, evolve and become defined simultaneously in a singular activity. Such is the dynamics of non‑linearity. It is exactly what ordinary set theory in algebraic logics cannot adequately describe, and that is why those systems suffer from Gödel’s incompleteness theorems.[5]

Assuming that one is still “with” the resonant non‑linearity that moves from space to contra‑space, we are naturally led into a consideration of objective consciousness, which regards the world primary and the self as derived, and thus the “it-Thou” modality. Within this perspective the world of objective interaction is looked upon as the sole source for the appearance of consciousness, giving us, therefore, the non‑personal, natural modality of awareness in which recognition is given to the world as a world of primary presence, relative to which subjectivity can and does emerge. But, in so emerging, we shall be considering consciousness as the appearance of an objective field or space, called a communal world or awareness, coming out of the objective events occurring in the form of energy‑field interaction — i.e., through “it”‑ness as a direct objectivity and not as a simple particle mechanics. Natural consciousness expresses the development of matter in objective space and time in such a way that it gives birth to biological and social forms of energy‑fields, relative to which all forms of awareness can be viewed. However, just as subjective consciousness as an isolated modality is solipsistic and unable to account for a true “other”, objective consciousness as an isolated modality develops and can be experienced as an “inverted”, impersonal solipsism or “pantheism”, in which no proper ego‑structure or direct feeling complex is experienced: one only percieves oneself as a body of matter‑in‑motion functioning within an objective world of subjectivity in the form of a public, communal world, void of intimate feeling. All feeling is regarded as constructed from impersonal energy‑fields, and society is but a larger system of matter‑in‑motion within which the individual functions as an object. Both social consciousness and natural consciousness regard the self as only derived and in the form of a commune or “Thou” (just as both direct consciousness and subjective consciousness regard the self as only a primary “I”). The difference in the first pair is that, for social consciousness, the “Thou” as an experienced subjectivity reveals as its objects ego‑feeling states, while for natural consciousness, the “Thou” as an experienced subjectivity reveals as its objects only non‑ego forms of material space‑time interaction. In objective consciousness, one experiences oneself not as a delimited and normalized personal ego within a worldly commune of social norms and laws, but rather, as a delimited impersonal composition of the vast cosmic process of natural evolution following natural laws. In so doing, a communal world is evolved within which one appears as but an objective event.

But the whole point must now be evident, having literally looked at the same two‑dimensional totality, or square, called e'', from all four sides and having seen the entire process of awareness relative to the two Janus‑faced tricksters, namely, the 3‑6 joker and the 7‑8 counter‑joker. The process of consciousness, or field‑event self‑activation (e'), expressing the dynamics of immediacy (e) while taking the form of a double level non‑linearity, develops from its two fundamental self‑oppositions of “immediacy‑as‑self” and “mediation‑as‑world” a dialectic in which this self, as a field, and world, as its events, not only become directly and inversely related, thus, producing a becoming and counter‑becoming boundary state of uroboric and social consciousness between them, but also and at the same time, this developing consciousness manifests itself both within the field of self in terms of a personal evolution of ego‑feelings, and within the world of events as a non‑personal evolution of cosmic composition. It is not a question of ever reducing feeling to matter, or matter to feeling, or of reducing direct immediacy to social awareness or social awareness to direct immediacy. What we call matter, feeling, direct immediacy, and social mediation are all but different aspects of paradoxical non‑linear relations within a field of presence. All four modalities possible with a paradoxical subject‑to‑object relation, where the subject appears as “I” or “Thou”, and the object as “it” or “me”, are necessary relative to the singular immediacy given as an “I-it-Thou-me” dialectic. Consciousness, therefore, cannot be just a simple “subject versus object” mechanism, nor can it be an equally simple “subject equals object” mysticism. Nor must one complicate matters by all sorts of useless philosophical evasions of these notions through verbal manipulation, getting bogged down in an infinity of complex, esoteric, linear definitions and identities, generated through rampant “reflectitus” — the major disease of scientists and philosophers continually wanting to delimit all things into categories or definitions, resulting only in a “hardening of the categories”, as some astute philosopher once remarked. Consciousness flows simultaneously in a multitude of directions, and even this two dimensional matrix only offers the barest of outlines. Nevertheless, it is an outline and an entrance into the infinite and intricate web of topological non‑linearity in which the joke is always on you: all reflection and thinking is always done within a concrete world of immediacy­ and does not take place in mere abstraction. One must therefore cultivate the ability to experience and feel what one thinks, reflects, and formalizes, and learn how to bring into thought what one feels, when that is necessary. While one is “thinking‑reflectively‑about” something, one must also realize that one is paradoxically “thinking‑immediacy‑with” that same something, and thus generating in immediacy the very world which one thinks he is only describing at a distance. This is a general condition of which the principle of indeterminacy of measurement in physics, informing us that the very act of observation changes both the observer and the observed, is but a special case. The very act of thinking about something also changes both the thought and the thinker. Liar’s paradox indeed! When one speaks, one is never telling “the” truth, but only lifting out one side at a time at a time at a time . . . (right now this is happening ... ) It is only when one recognizes this paradox to actually express the world as a world being given (thus, a world which is transitive between true‑as‑present and not‑true‑as‑not‑present, and as such, expressive of life as that which is becoming‑present) only then will one experience the reality of consciousness: all being is being: to form is to transform.

We have now arrived at the ninth and last term for the e'' matrix. This represents the entire phenomenology of consciousness as Creative Consciousness, indicative of the condition that transformation, self‑becoming, revolution, non‑linearity, paradox, and the dynamics of immediacy are all different ways of expressing what the eidos of consciousness implies: to be is to create, and not to create means not to be. Any one channelized modality of stabilized consciousness delimits awareness into a stagnant compulsion, resulting in a degeneracy of being and contradiction. Within the context of second level dialectics, this creativity is expressed by the “I and Thou” consciousness of continual reciprocal and transforming awareness, called genuine self‑consciousness. This creativity is also mapped out as a totality by the “diagonal” triad, cutting across both the first level horizontal dialectics, which set up +e and ‑e, and the second level vertical dialectics, which transforms these into +e' and -e'. Whereas the first level triad, +e, ‑e, ±e of e' gave us the basic dialectic to be between S and W, one can regard this diagonal triad, representing a two‑cycle matrix in one cycle, as the reappearance of the entire e' triad on a higher level: ++e, ‑-e, and  ±±e — “I”, “Thou”, and the “I and Thou” mutuality, in other words — is what one obtains. Instead of S revealing W, S now reveals itself through W in one cycle.

But even this stage as already indicated, can become transcended into a still larger perspective — e.g., a new kind of diagonal cutting across a three dimensional matrix — and we must now point to that transcendence in order to make explicit exactly what one means by calling the second stage the “I and Thou” resonance a genuine “self-consciousness”. Self‑consciousness cannot simply mean a subjective consciousness wherein “I perceive me”, for the “me” is not a self, but a subjective world. Yet, we also feel that we must express our own genuine self‑reflection, independent of our being known by “something else” called a “Thou”: as it turns out, in a second order dialectic, no subjective form of an “I and Thou” resonance explicitly exists, relative to or within the “I”. However, one can formulate this to exist in a third order matrix, but only together with an objective form of an “I and Thou”, now relative to the “Thou”. Let us see what all of this implies.

In e'', genuine self‑consciousness as a real self‑self co‑relation can only develop within a natural and social world where an as‑yet unreflected “I”, in perceiving a world, perceives that world as a subjectivity or “Thou” which in turn, recognizes a “me” that is acting as an “I”. Without recognition — validation and tenderness in Sullivanian terms — selfhood cannot appear or emerge into “I”‑ness, for “I”‑ness exists only as a correlate to “Thou”‑hood. (If the “I” appears within an already established commune, or “Thou”‑hood, then the emergence of a new selfhood will naturally also effect and transform the commune, as the “I” is emerging in mutual resonance.) However, this second level resonance between “I” and “Thou” can itself produce a further self‑differentiation, now between an “I-me” modality integrating a “Thou-it” relation within it, and a “Thou-it” modality integrating an “I-me”. This will happen in e''', wherein a third order non‑linearity between field and events manifests itself, should it appear in the world. Thus, in an e''' state, the “I-me” mutuality within the self will internalize and integrate the “Thou-it” objectivity of the world relative to its own perspective, in such a way that any one “ego-possessing” state of an “I” is not only recognized by an “outer Thou”, but by something new: it is seen by a “Thou within an I”i.e., by a subjective form of an objective field. This “I” is thus capable of self‑recognition, which means that it not only experiences itself as the “me”‑object of an objective “Thou-it” field, but experiences itself as the objective “Thou” field of an objective “it” base, capable, therefore, of self‑observation. Society, or the objective “Thou” field, on the other hand, also changes, for it can then be directly perceived to consist of “ego‑possessing” states of “I”, and thus a world of “Thou-it” natural consciousness which also has developed within it a personal world of “I-me” consciousness relative to its perspective. This means the appearance of an “I within a Thou” or an objective form of a subjective field capable of manifesting ego‑states of subjective feeling and “me”‑ness as being in the world, and not only appearing within an “I”.

A genuine transcendence of the e'' modality of consciousness into an e''' state that is stable and self‑integrated (and not always lapsing back into one of its subordinate states, which would now include the old e'' state, modified, internalized, and thus, aufgehoben) will mean the ability to directly experience one’s inner life objectively and the outer world subjectively — i.e., to consistently manifest both objective self‑recognition and subjective world‑experience, the first being an expression of the ability of consciousness to truly manifest self‑awareness, and the second being an expression of the ability of consciousness to truly care, by being able to directly experience feeling‑in‑the‑world‑in‑others. The first as the development of wisdom and the second as the appearance of love must develop together as is evident from our dialectic process of awareness. Furthermore, the appearance of this wisdom and love — and thus, the appearance of a more enlightened “philo-sophy” or “love of wisdom” out of the e'' state is predicated upon the ability of e'' consciousness to experience itself as an integral dynamic of immediacy (state 9) in which the various subordinate simple unities of consciousness do not fixate consciousness out onto a compulsive limb, causing regression and degeneracy of integrity, the degree of integrity being defined precisely by the degree to which one is capable of living one’s life as all “I-Thou” resonance of creative‑consciousness. Totally integrated, e'' would be a singular self‑mediated immediacy capable of becoming transformed as a whole into a richer and more complex state, i.e., into a +e'', ‑e'' dialectic descriptive of e''', and would not merely continue to exhibit a repetition‑compulsion process in which the various unintegrated subordinate aspects within e'' continually reassert and reappear without being able to redefine their universe of presence through self‑integration into a higher order non‑linearity or dialectic feedback structure. Unfortunately, the tendencies in our awareness are such, at present, to eclipse integrated behavior, and as a result, we tend only to express an “ego-centered” subjective awareness of ourselves and an “it-centered” objective awareness of the world and hence of one’s other’s subjectivity, no stable feedback appearing to couple and to redefine the self and the world through each other on a higher plane. In order for such integration to happen explicitly, and not merely sporadically, what is called for is not only a further subjective development in an enlightened “I-me” ego‑function, occurring through psychological insight and discovery, but a further objective development of the “Thou-it” complex, i.e., the further evolution of both society and the natural world within which society functions — the former, into a more radical and revolutionary form of awareness transforming present class‑structure, and the latter, into a more integrated and responsive component of our being. Systematic ecology, automation, objective forms of cybernetic systems coordinating social and natural complexes together, plus the ability of man to increasingly control his own biological evolution and to actually change the physical basis of his perception are all involved.

One can now, as an overall summary of the e'' state of consciousness, describe the four essential components, or dimensions, of creative awareness to consist of uroboric, or pre‑personal, consciousness; social, or inter‑personal consciousness; subjective, or personal, consciousness; and objective, or non‑personal, consciousness, all four being continually present in varying degrees, and all four requiring a delicate balance to appear in order for their immediate totality of creative, or trans‑personal consciousness to manifest itself. Once viewed in this fashion, the entire e'' phenomenology of consciousness reveals an interesting fact: consciousness, manifesting itself as the “becoming of personality”, can be viewed completely subjectively and completely objectively — subjectively, if we view term 9 in terms of the 1, 5 diagonal, and objectively, if we view term 9 in terms of its complementary 2, 4 counter‑diagonal. The 1, 5 diagonal is the more obvious one, namely the phenomenology of consciousness regarded as the self‑development and self‑mediation of immediacy or subjectivity as it expresses itself through self‑opposition into intersubjectivity, the world of mediation appearing as but its means. However, one must not forget that the origin of phenomenology is not subjectivity defined as +e (i.e., the self), but rather, it is the non‑linear totality of immediacy simply regarded as e. This totality of presence would be void of appearance, were it not for the ability of immediacy to appear, which, in turn, means the ability of the non‑linear field to manifest itself in terms of events of distinction, called objectivity, negation and determination. The e‑ing process of e, e'' is only possible through a process of ­self‑negation, for otherwise, e, e', and e'' would be identical: it is the objective component of immediacy which is the entire content of immediacy. Immediacy cannot be grasped as such, being but the field of presence and not that which is present. Subjectivity as such is void, while objectivity is its entire content: whatever we see, hear, touch, feel, or think is an objectivity and a negation. Hubris is but the mistaken notion that some particular manifestation is the appearance of subjectivity itself which can be possessed as if one could reach out to God and shake his hand. Thus, one only becomes aware of any immediacy such as, for example, e, relative to a larger, immediate totality e' , within which e now appears posited and delimited into +e in co‑relation to itself as a negated, or ‑e, such that whatever immediacy is present and total namely, — is never e' an object of position or negation: immediacy “itself” is always transitive and in a state of being.

If we now look at the e'' matrix relative to the 2‑4 modality, we shall discover what the e‑ing process is in terms of its determined appearance, its objective world content. Thus, we start with the “it”‑structure of the world (term 2) given as an immediate form of objectivity, namely, the immediate unbounded content of the subjective field of presence. This would be the world of energy‑fields, within which localized energy complexes appear called ego‑structures (term 4), which have the ability to reflect not only their environment of energy, but also to reflect themselves reflecting their environment. However, the very boundary state of co‑relation between the ego‑state and environment, or the boundary among any elements of objectification, is in turn, nothing but an expression of their state of inseparability, and it is this field of inseparability among and between distinctions which is what we have been calling subjectivity. Hence, the non‑linear field of presence within which all objective interaction occurs is the ever‑present e‑state, which, relative to a particular ego‑complex, is an “I”‑field, and relative to the co‑defining environment of the ego‑complex, is the “Thou”‑field, such that any ego‑environment, or “me-it” interaction which occurs represented by the 4‑2 term coupling, is always an expression of the entire world of objectivity, and hence, is also an “I-Thou” phenomenon when viewed relative to the total field of presence, called e''. To completely do justice to this type of account, however, would require going into a greater delineation of what the immediate experiences of “it” and “me” are, and the reflections of these experiences, which are an integral aspect of the dynamics of immediacy.

Before finishing our comments on the general structure of consciousness, one thing must be emphasized. The e‑ing process of the dynamics of immediacy generates an infinity of terms, and as a result, it seems as if this infinity must either converge or diverge. If it converges, this means that some kind of particular goal is present towards which all awareness must progress, devaluating the present, and identifying being only in what is not yet. However, if it diverges, then we seem to have a purposeless existence, in which only the present matters, and not any direction beyond it, for there will then only be a repetition of events without integration. Once again, the notions of convergence and divergence are abstractions: a dialectic infinity “trans-verges”, which is to say that both the convergent universality, or unity of presence, and the co‑relative uniqueness, or diversification of its expression, increase together, being coupled opposites, such that in the limit, absolute integration would be equivalent to absolute self‑differentiation — a limit, however, which can neither be posited as such nor negated as such, for any one such act, by excluding the other, would exclude itself, positing and negating always being coupled together. We have, therefore, a paradoxical limit which can not, paradoxically, be either affirmed or negated, but this is precisely the point: being is always transitive. It is just because there is no identifiable goal in the evolution of consciousness, there not being any particular beginning or particular end, that there is a sense of direction and becoming at any one stage. This means that it is the very transformation of whatever particular stage of consciousness is present here and now which is the ever‑present goal and limit. (One can have one’s cake and eat it, too; just never stop chewing, digesting, growing, changing!) As we have remarked before, all being is self‑becoming: it is neither a static presence at any real or ideal point, nor an endless becoming into something totally different. A genuine infinity, as an infinity, is not an infinite regression or progression into a vague dissolution or an ultimate static resolution (different forms of Hegel’s “bad” infinity), but rather, an expression of the depths to which one can become what one is, forever realizing that the total and complete Heraclitian fire of transformation, being complete and absolute, is also at the same time the Parmenedian state of pure rest and being. It is not a question of living one’s life in static comfort or in search of some resting place, nor is it living in the expectation of a revolution to come: it is a question of living one’s life as a permanent revolution. Being able to integrate the modality of transformation as the very basis of one’s formation and identity, thus, perceiving all change as self‑change, means transcending the contradictions between rest and change, being and becoming, and ultimately, immortality and mortality. Both immortality and mortality are abstractions based upon the presumed existence of a given or fixed identity called the self, having, therefore, the property of being either permanently defined or not i.e., a linearized non‑paradoxical identity that has only contradictory alternatives. However, if no such given identity exists in the first place, then one lives beyond mortality and immortality: one is trans‑mortal. The clarity of genuine Zen and the intuition behind Nietzsche’s eternal occurrence if properly understood point to the same conclusion: enlightenment is but the realization of oneself as transcendent, precisely because one is totally transitive and therefore void of an identity that needs to be “saved” or that may ultimately be “doomed”. With such an awareness, one’s life is then lived as an immediate unity of the ever‑present universal field of immediacy and the changing unique forms of its appearance through which and only through which this immediacy manifests itself: each moment is an eternal instant, an instant of the field of totality. As with Zorba, each moment counts!

We will now consider the “b” sections appearing within the four unities (3, 6, 7, and 8) and briefly explicate the four types of philosophies which naturally co‑exist with the four modalities of consciousness these unities present. Calling self and world now mind (nous) and matter, respectively, using these over‑used forms merely as convenient handles for philosophical reference, it is easy to see how the four positions of simple mysticism, positivism, idealism and materialism appear. Simple mysticism (unity 3) regards both man and matter as immediate, unrestricted, and primary, which is to say that neither of them can appear localized as a determinate entity; all being is a fusion of subject and object, immediately present, eternal, indeterminate, and spontaneous, there not being any true external mediation and juxtaposition in public space permitting for calculation and determination. In simple mysticism, all forms are only seen as immediate and unrestricted, and thus all opposites are only in an immediate unity of unrestricted opposition, not permitting any genuine mediation or distinctions to appear linearized out and thereby creating a measureable pattern of distinctions. Simple positivism, behaviorism, or dualism (term 6), on the other hand, is the direct inversion of this perspective, being as “occidental” and “western” in flavor as the first is “oriental” and “eastern”. Here, both matter and mind, or self and world, appear localized as entities, separated out into external juxtaposition. Thus, there is the problem of mental facts versus physical facts, all facts co‑existing within a public space of description, and the problem being one of detailing, defining, measuring, and calculating all experience in this fashion. Just as the simple mystic emphasizes the inseparability of inseparable distinctions, the simple positivist emphasizes the distinctness and atomicity present, preferring clarity of vision to depth of experience. In the limit, the first condition which seeks depth merges into a vague indistinctness of grey upon grey, and the second, which wants clarity, dissects all experience into trivial atoms of black and white. The first is merely non‑linear, and the second merely linear, neither seeing that a radical non‑determinate, non‑linear situation must also be capable of expressing a non‑linearity or dialectic between the indeterminate non‑linear and the determinate linear, now taken as mutual co‑opposites within a larger trans‑determinate non‑linearity (or, “trans-linearity”) which can include both as functioning contrasts. Both mysticism and positivism are anti‑metaphysical, which is to say that neither of them regards the existence of some one entity or substance to which of all other entities are mere appearances. The mystic denies such a metaphysics because mind and matter are one to begin with, permitting no relation between what does not exist as two distinctions to begin with, neither mind nor matter, therefore, capable of being the reality over which the other is only appearance. The positivist denies such a metaphysics because mind and matter are two in their very nature, giving us logic without ontology, and permitting no intrinsic relation between what only exists as two distinctions. Thus, any relation which tries to make one a function of the other is an arbitrary, external convenience and fiction. In a sense, the mystic says all is real and immediately present, and the positivist says all is appearance and in a mediated state, reality being but a construction from appearance. For neither is there a metaphysical problem of appearance versus reality.

If we now turn to the other two unities, we come to unity 7 as simple idealism, and unity 8 as simple materialism. In both, we find a metaphysics of reality versus appearance, the first one taking mind to be primary and real, the second, matter. In the former case, the objective world is but the expression of mental states of mind, mind thus taking on all kinds of form. As a result, physical appearance is ultimately a question only of mental deduction of some kind. For the simple materialist, however, the mental state of thought and feeling are but the expression of physical processes, and deduction, or mental reflection, is taken to be a poor, “internal” reflection of physical reality. Both the simple idealist and the simple materialist take as fundamental fact that there is an intrinsic relation of opposition between matter and mind, and given one as independent, the other must be dependent. On the other hand, both the simple mystic and the simple positivist take as fundamental fact that there is no intrinsic relation of opposition between matter and mind in the first place, both matter and mind being co‑present, but in different ways. For the mystic, matter and mind are mutually co‑immediate and singularly real, while for the positivist, matter and mind are mutually co‑mediated appearances. However, what all four simple positions miss is the dynamic of relation between mind and matter, in which neither is merely primary or secondary, nor is either merely an independent or dependent variable, but in which both are a state of continual self‑relation, mind and matter being two sides of a single paradox — a state in which the very notions of appearance and reality themselves become co‑determinate. This is expressed mostly completely by the philosophy of dialectic phenomenology, position — or rather, trans‑position — 9 in the matrix. (Here is neither a position of metaphysics nor an anti‑position of anti‑metaphysics; rather, there is the expression of a “trans-metaphysics”.) From this perspective, whatever appears in one form reveals a co‑form appearing alongside of it, i.e., paradoxically, and as a result, to appear means to become transformed into another appearance, such that “reality” is but this very process of appearances, and appearances are but the stages of reality.

Because second level consciousness is always total to some degree, lest it not function as e'', this means that the simple mystic is only a mystic in his explicit awareness, and will tend to function as his inverse, i.e., as a positivist implicitly and unconsciously: vice versa for the simple positivist. Each one being a mutual inversion of the other, they are thus mirror images, with one image visible only because the other one is not visible, this only because of the tendency consciousness has to become trapped within its own linearizations or fixations, producing schizophrenic contradictions instead of fluid integrations. Both the mystic and positivist, being singularly anti‑metaphysical, so couple mind and matter that, should the mystic, in his world of immediacy, find it unavoidable to deal with mediation, he will do so positivistically, and, on the other hand, should the positivist actually face immediacy, he reveals his other face of mysticism. Similarly for the simple idealist or materialist: each is a repression of the other. In the constant game of “who is on top ... mind or matter?”, any one stress will, upon mere exhaustion, revert to the other for relief. Of all this talk about mind and matter, there is but one good comment: “If one really doesn’t mind, it really doesn’t matter!”

However, it is possible to take each of these four simple positions, and by radicalizing them, come up with a total picture of a dialectical phenomenology, now seen relative to each of these four positions. Thus, for example, an abstract mathematician as an idealist, an experimental physicist as a materialist, a poet as a mystic, and a technician as a positivist or behaviorist, by the very nature of what they are doing, tend to express themselves only in a certain way if they are not aware of the depths and surprises of paradoxical existence. However, all of these professions, each one of which tends to single out only one type or segment of awareness, has access in awareness to all of them. Hence, a radical mathematician or a radical technician — a radical anything, for that matter — will be one who is aware of the “root”, or “radical”, of his field, and it is this root which is the paradoxical nature of consciousness, permitting any one aspect to reflect the whole, and furthermore, revealing a whole which only appears through its aspects or manifestations. As previously indicated, totality is never an abstract whole, and must always be discovered relative to the distinction of unique forms and parts in existence. Putting it crudely, without Gestalt, universality or inseparability, the experience of communication of any kind, would be impossible (one could not even talk about the problem without expressing co‑relation of ideas). On the other hand, without uniqueness or particularity of distinction, there would not be any point to communication, movement, or living (all would be complete already).

With this realization, we can now take the phenomenological position as a whole, and see how it manifests itself through the various four philosophies. I would see Husserl as an essence‑oriented, or idealistic, phenomenologist (the transcendental ego revealing its intensional world, mathematician that he always was), Sartre as an existence‑oriented, or materialistic, phenomenologist (subjectivity, or consciousness, being only the “nothingness” of being‑in‑itself, or matter). Heidegger as a being‑oriented, or mystic, phenomenologist (Sein being an all‑pervading, essentially non‑linearizable field of presence which must ultimately be perceived poetically), and finally, Kant as a dualistic, or positivistic, phenomenologist (the opposition between analytic, logical, a priori truth or essence, and synthetic, empirical, a posteriori truth or existence appearing only in a mediated and not unbounded phenomenological synthesis called the “synthetic unity of apperception”, serving as the basis for synthetic a priori truths). The type of dialectic each reveals is also, interestingly enough, a dialectic which tends to be, respectively, formal, external, implicit, and manipulatory for the four cases cited above. However, in all justice, the four identified characterizations (all identification being only characterization, and, therefore, either comic or tragic, or at best, both) are merely indications of the “flavor” each philosopher is inclined towards, and it is up to the reader to honor any awareness with what is due an awareness, if the reader indeed regards himself as an awareness: a submission to whatever is being said or done not in order to perceive the ideological “fallout” of linearized definitions which each one of necessity is subject to but which hides the dynamic movement present (enjoying oneself by judging this one as good, that one as bad... ), but rather submission in order to come to know the life that is generating this movement because, as a life and a movement it is real, significant, and must be taken into consideration. Only academicians, the herd mentality, and their demagogues play useless games with their heads, but unfortunately, too often subject the world to their headaches which they call judgments.

Before ending this section, it must be added that the four positions of philosophic insight only refer to the e'' state of awareness: an infinitude of positions are possible. Nevertheless, these four positions do serve as convenient landmarks for consciousness, when consciousness is seen as a two‑dimensional process — and, indeed, that is where one tends to find it more often than not today, if one is lucky.

Moving now to the “c” sections appearing within the four unities (3, 6, 7, and 8), one can regard the phenomenology of consciousness in terms of its psychological dimension. This dimension, while expressed in terms of subjective, personal factors, is nevertheless regarded as expressive of the entire field of consciousness, reflective of the status, therefore, of whole societies, and indeed, of even physical structures themselves which are, phenomenologically, but the objective side of subjectivity. Within this domain, the notions of subjectivity or self and objectivity or world will be specified more particularly with the notions, Eros and Logos, respectively. Subjectivity as a field of presence will be regarded in terms of its dynamic of non‑linear inseparability, and called Eros or the Dionysian. Eros is neither just a localized sex drive, nor merely a vague principle of universal movement: it is the dynamic of presence itself, the felt immediacy of transformation, the very movement of paradox, which is a self‑duplication, self‑negation process of growth and becoming. It is e experienced as e‑ing. Objectivity, on the other hand, as the events of linearizable distinction appearing through this non‑linear field, will be regarded in terms of the organic forms and structure which this field generates, and is termed Logos or the Apollonian. This structure is, then, the e, e', e'' distinctions of the e‑ing process. Self‑and‑world, or the field with its events, are now to be experienced as a singular, dynamic structure, the two inseparable aspects of which are Eros as its dynamics, and Logos as its structure, with the added realization that of these two distinctions, it is Eros, or the Dionysian, which, as dynamic of immediacy and the power of self‑negation, self‑generates and self‑negates into a posited Eros called self and a counter‑posited Eros called its world, structure, or Logos. Logos is always within Eros, as all structure, form, mediation, and distinction is within a dynamic immediacy. Thus, as with Nietzsche, it is the Dionysian dynamics which finds its greatest power precisely to the degree to which it can express itself in structure and form, yet all the time being Dionysian. All subjectivity and immediacy seeks self‑negation through mediation and objectivity in order to appear as an enriched self‑mediated immediacy: the “will to power” as the “will”, or Eros, towards self‑overcoming through self‑mediation!

Phenomenologically, Eros will include intuition states and feeling tones, while Logos, in turn, will include linearizable sensation and thought forms, the former having reference to the fluid state of non‑discursive presence, while the latter represents consciousness in terms of the discursive objectifications within a non‑discursive, non‑linear field.

Now, the fundamental structure of a second order matrix reveals that the only representation of totality as an immediacy is the ninth and last term, all other unities being one‑sided linearizations. Furthermore, they are all one‑sided for the same reason: self and world in each of them are only expressed in terms of something given. Mathematically, self and world are given in these one‑sided unities — as either independent (immediate) or dependent (mediated) variables. As function‑fixed variables, self and world display a fundamental schizophrenic condition in their relation, schizophrenia being described here as the condition of fixation itself. Thus for a norm‑oriented individual, a state of rest and givenness is primary, and motion or a dialectic of relation can only spell a contradiction of defined terms: one cannot both be and not‑be at the same time, being and not‑being regarded as two separately defined terms. Therefore, to present dialectics merely as a study of contradiction, or as something which involves a contradictory unity of opposites, is to be playing a self‑defeating game. Actually, relative to a dynamic of immediacy, the natural condition is one of paradox and mutual opposition, where there is no diction, let alone contradiction! Then, relative to this modality of motion, any fixation of a linear variable — anything grasped, held, or pinned down out of immediacy — automatically creates a contradiction between what is held, and what is rejected by the very act of focusing. Only when one becomes aware of this focusing process itself, can one then recognize the source of contradiction, and re‑integrate into mutuality what has been focused, not by producing a further contradiction and rejecting the act of focusing, but by including focusing, or linearization, as but one of the inner components of a non‑linear process that, being non‑linear, can manifest itself through self‑opposition: focus heightens the distinctions present within a non‑linear immediacy, such that on a deeper plane, what was simply immediate, can now appear as an enriched and more subtle immediacy, expressing itself through its mediated parts which only came to recognition as parts through the activity of focus.[6]

Thus, consciousness, as an objective process of distinction, is bound by an intrinsic condition of schizophrenia, which is, as it were, exactly that which it must self‑overcome in order to express itself as a dynamic of being on a deeper plane of existence. The “evil” or “sin” of schizophrenic consciousness lies embedded within the heart of integrity or the “good”: the good is only good in so far as it sees itself as a self‑overcoming of its own evil and contradictions, without separating evil from good, which, qua separation, is then but a deeper expression of evil or schizophrenic awareness (Gogol: “how sad it is to see so little goodness in the good…”). Now, just as Sullivan in his theory of man postulates a fundamental schizophrenic condition to exist between the Self‑system and the not‑Self counter‑system (the former being the region of humanly validated experience fixed into a self‑perpetuation structure, and the latter, non‑validated experience counter‑fixed into an anti‑structure, a schizophrenic split whose disjunction is maintained by the central paranoia, but whose transcendence is governed by the integral personality), we shall also consider a similar dynamic, together with a similar evolution of psychological categories, although not identically interpreted, for our initial variables have been intuited from a different, but complementary, perspective.

Now, unity 3, called immediate consciousness, is the initial starting point for all e'' consciousness, being as it is the previous e' of consciousness‑activity, now posited as a new starting point called +e' . However, this very positing creates the condition of schizophrenia, for here both self and world, Eros and Logos, or feeling and objective thought structure, are seen and felt as immediate, primary, and independent variables, and thus variables functioning in a world in which they are only co‑immediate, unrestricted, and unbounded. Thus, a state of contradiction of function and mutual tension exists, for now each singular variable, while appearing omnipresent and unrestricted, nevertheless reveals within its midst another variable, equally unrestricted and independent. For without also positing -e', and hence self and world as co‑mediations (i.e., unity 6, or social consciousness), no means seems to be available for any type of transition between self and world, -e' supplying this transition by revealing each self to also be a world‑conditioned self, and each world to be a self‑conditioned world (thus revealing the existence of a double paradox or double boundary condition, now between S and its negation into W — S(S) and W(S) — and W and its negation into S — W(W) and S(W) — and not merely a simple paradox as in e', in which the opposition was simply between S as an independent S and W only as a dependent W called not‑S). Unity 3 is a confrontation of immediacy, with no relief by mediation, reflection, or distance. It is, therefore, an immediate unity of independent variables productive of a completeness which is inconsistent. In this condition, it becomes impossible to distinguish subjective feeling from objective thought, and instead of a genuine unity, one experiences a confusion of opposites: all objectivity and the reality of distinctions seems to vanish.

Now, such a confusion is exactly what occurs in full force whenever the counter‑unity — unity 6 — of co‑mediated social awareness co‑existing with unity 3, breaks down because of its inherent tensions. Unity 6 is the inverted schizophrenic condition of normalized consciousness, namely, a consciousness in which a safe mediation is seen to exist between the highly emotional inner drives of the ego’s “id,” and the outer thought structures of society dictated to the ego through the “superego”. The ego in this condition regards itself as a mediated ego‑system, embedded within a counter‑mediated commune in which each is assigned its proper place for being co‑mediated, a mutually exclusive boundary separating them. A normalized consciousness lives within a delusional state of technical manipulation, for the universe seems merely to be a matter of relating and compromising two opposing regions, known as the private sector and the public sector, neither of which is immediately felt to be reality itself, let alone both. The normalized person therefore lives an alienated life — i.e., a life normalized and cut up into self‑contained parts without any experience of the immediate life and continuity between them. These parts are cut up in order to fit into some determined pattern within which the person only appears as an isolated and controlled individual. One’s life, while incomplete, as it lacks awareness of the immediacy of relation between self and world, tends to be consistent as long as no major disturbance arises at the hidden boundary between self and world, which as a boundary, is also the very means of co‑relating self to world. Thus, the normalized herd‑man lives ever on the verge of schizophrenia, and all of his energies are obsessively dedicated to not becoming aware of the inner anxiety that comes from masking the ambiguity that lies at the boundary between self and world: “no news is good news.”

However, this anxiety comes into awareness whenever the mask slips due to inner and outer pressures. Then, for a terrorizing moment, which can last indefinitely or only for a split second, the entire compulsively controlled and well balanced structure of the determined world order collapses. At this point, a schizophrenic experience, if not severe, will resolve itself back into the normal mode of neurosis, but, if disturbing enough, can plunge one into a psychotic breakdown giving rise to either a catatonic state (unity 7), or a paranoidal counter‑state (unity 8). In a catatonic, or hysterical, reaction, consciousness attempts a one‑sided solution by subordinating objective thought structure and world orientation to a subjective self‑centered feeling state, such that the external world ceases to function as an independent variable. The catatonic regards the world of objective distinctions solely as a fantasy world derived from its non‑localizable, non‑discursive feeling state, a world in which objective distinctions cannot be maintained, for all thought is but a vehicle for the expression of dislocated emotion, therefore, withdrawing more and more into a dissolving, ingrowing vortex. On the other hand, a paranoid counter‑reaction represents an inverse resolving activity by consciousness. Here it is the subjective feeling state which ceases to be primary, and instead the world of objects and things, thoughts and forms, appears as the source of a totally derived and manufactured subjectivity. Whereas a catatonic reacts less and less to objective events, objective distinctions dissolving, the paranoid tends more and more to over‑react to objective activity, forever attemting to resolve all of reality into a grandiose expanding vortex of infinitely fine distinctions, never ceasing to be suspicious of the infinity of meanings that lay pregnant in what is merely present and not yet dissected. The catatonic world becomes more and more unreactive and inert, while the paranoidal world becomes infinitely taut, tense, and hidden with possibility. Just as for the catatonic, the unrealized primary world becomes introjected into the self (“behind his back”) and transformed as a creation of the self, for a paranoid, the unrealized primary self becomes projected into the world (“in front of his eyes”) and transformed as a creation of the world. Thus, the catatonic, to the degree to which he denies the objective world, regards himself as the world instead, and all of his feeling states become preoccupied with their creation and not with their genuine expression in the world. The paranoid, on the other hand, to the degree to which he denies the subjective self, regards the world as the residence of self‑hood, and thereby loses contact with the world as objectivity: the world appears as the center of intensional subjectivity, and a madhouse of objectified, projected feelings. Ironically, for the catatonic, the very denial of the world transforms him into a world, or passive thing, and for the paranoid, the very denial of the self transforms the world instead into that very self. Self and world, being paradoxically conditioned, generate themselves into their opposites, should any one of them be denied. (This is the logic by which Hegel obtains Nothing from Being, and Being from Nothing: take away all negation and determination from Being, and you have Being itself appear as Nothing. Let Nothing cease to serve as a relational negation or determination of Being, and Nothing itself, in turn, appears as Being. What did Hegel have to say about Being itself'? The answer is simple: “Nothing!”)

The catatonic and paranoidal reactions are, therefore, the two halves into which the fundamental condition of schizophrenic consciousness tends either to dissolve or resolve itself. All normal consciousness represents life that is lived merely as a not too delicate balance and mediation between these two opposing terrors, which as a result, neither dissolves nor resolves them, but only compromises. Thus, it is a balance which is always capable of revealing its underlying insanity or madness, namely, the very schizophrenic condition it is predicated upon but continually puts out of sight: the world political scene today is an obvious parallel. Only by being able to experience all four modalities of consciousness in their interconnection as a singular activity, allowing oneself to feel one’s unintegrated being as sheer madness and not continue to live on as a compulsive neurotic, can one begin to become aware of the fact that the dynamic operative here is basically not a consciousness predicated upon a contradiction between self and world, but rather, on the creative paradoxical condition of total transitivity, self and world each completing themselves through the other and hence, continually expressing self‑identity only through self‑transcendence. In order to achieve such a mutual self‑world interaction on any permanent basis, however, a transformation of both self and world, of individual psychological awareness and of those social class conditions which continue to reinforce the contradictions upon which normative existence is predicated, is needed. To attempt only a resolution by changing the world and denying the self is, of course, a paranoidal resolution. However, by only indulging in self‑analysis without participation is equally as impotent: it is a catatonic, or hysterical, withdrawal from the world, productive of private resolutions which can only function in a very small Lebenswelt, consequently, producing unsensitized individuals incapable of giving themselves and their young any sense of what it means to be conscious in the first place.

In conclusion, a dialectic phenomenology of consciousness reveals that it is not the normal life of awareness which is healthy and integral, for a normalized state of awareness at best stagnates growth, and at worst, creates the condition for tremendous schizophrenic breakdowns into catatonic and paranoidal madness. With a dialectical phenomenology of creative consciousness, one either transcends or degenerates: a flower either grows or it dies; only in “Pleasantville” do they keep plastic roses. A purgatory of normalized rest is but a passing phase between heaven or hell. To be completely true to the totality of paradoxical awareness, all four modalities of schizophrenic, normalized, catatonic, and paranoidal consciousness must be experienced, integrated and transcended in the world in concrete form (aufgehoben) and in so becoming aware of these modalities, transcending by that very awareness. Paradoxical consciousness is never a passive state of mere observation or entertainment of ideas. Knowledge, action, wisdom, and love are forms of awareness which are transforming: it is only the normalized one dimensional “liberal”, who, in his blessed seclusion, thinks that all is merely a matter of seeing what there is, and then, balancing the forces present in a proper and decent fashion. Paradoxical awareness transforms itself as it relates to the world, and requires unbalance, revolution, asymmetry, and negation in order to give expression to new symmetries and balances just arising. Symmetry, upon reflection, is itself unsymmetric without a mutual relation to asymmetry — and thus, what is balanced and given continually needs to be re‑balanced through self‑opposition within a world that is in a state of self‑formation. A dynamic and changing balance cannot be simply predicted from fixed principles without contradiction. Dialectic phenomenology regards man himself, and no abstract principle, as the radical source of consciousness: dialectic phenomenology is “radical humanism”. As Marx said, it is not a question of simply interpreting the world: it is rather a question of man changing the world, and hence, changing himself through that world.

 

From Telos, No. 5, Spring 1970.

 

[1] See my “Formalization of Hegel’s Dialectical Logic”, in the International Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. VI, No.4, December, 1966, pp. 596‑631.

[2] See my “Note on Dialectical Logic Today” in Telos, no. 4.

[3] See my “Formalization of Hegel’s Logic” in I.P.Q., December 1966, and my Ph.D. thesis, Columbia 1964, “The Dialectic of Consciousness in Hegel’s Phenomenology of the Spirit”.

[4] See my “Dynamics of Paradox”, Telos, No. 5, Spring 1970.

[5] See my “Dynamics of Paradox’’, Telos, No. 5, Spring 1970.

[6] See my “Dynamics of Paradox’’, Telos, No. 5, Spring 1970.