The Consciousness Negative-memory Genealogy-reduction of Selfhood

The history of scientific and philosophical thought teaches us the miracle of independent evolutionary process called consciousness.A feature that connects a wide range of disciplines says that the consciousness is a “set” of identical psychological processes,conditioned to individual acts of will , and organized on the grounds of rational principles.A concept of uniform state of consciousness, like rational creature basic feature, is supported by each philosophical school, scientific theory or theological teachings.There are two basic attributive models of descriptive method in approaching the issue of consciousness: rationally-logical aspect of conscious act , or what is characterized as conscious and interpreted as both rational and logical, and the other one , which considers the consciousness as a general algorithm of emotionally-intuitive behavioral process , experience and cumulative perception of the outer world. As for this, psychoanalytic method and certain models of modern and postmodern philosophy at the end of the nineteenth century make a special digression . Probably the most surprising thing for traditionalists appeared to be psychoanalysis: consciousness withdraws from the throne giving space to the unconscious . Installing the transcendental idealism and defining the subject as creator of the world, flawless Kant has done the same as psychoanalysts in relation between conscious and unconscious.It is quite clear to experienced interpreter that, on the grounds of structure, these variations are purely formal, as the relation between conscious and unconscious stayed the same. Interaction between these two basic psychological domains is based on mutual two –way communication;depending on theoretical concept,some of these domains(conscious or unconscious) pretends to be the basic one.Mistaken conceptual notions of any theory result from many reasons , but equality among these concepts –consciousness, selfhood, subject, memory-is one of the essentials.Perceptual contents equality might be complemented to conscious domain form, but neeeden’t be structurally filled or semantically marked by entity of selfhood. By selfhood we understand an experience identity, mutually identical with intensity and formal definition, subjectively, formed into personal experience. Opposite to this, any form of introspective experience, in the shape of I-form, needn’t be generated and supported by the conscious .Previous relations examination showed that philosophers didn’t pay much attention to the aspect of memory, at least in synthetic examining conscious and selfhood.Previous examination,which referred to entity-totality relation, shows that ,formally accessed ,memory is considered as general domain negative, in relation with itself.In short ,referring to itself, memory is impracticable.. In previous part of examination,which considers the relation between entity and totality, it is obvious that memory, formally accessed, represents general conscious domain negative,in relation with its own `setting`.Intention of further examination is to represent the structure of memory as variable phenomena within itself.Defining the memory as consciousness negative would be a conceptual mistake,which would lead to conclusion that memory and conscious domain have similar features .In short, consciousness is to be defined as translated memory projection , like reflection in the mirror ,and in reverse. If it’s possible to presume certain form of partial nature of global memory note ,a logic result out of this memory entity imaginary setting would be each coded neuron. Although it is possible to imagine a ten billion neuron physical structure which ,according to its own quantity of information,makes to general sum what we conditionally define as memory identity. Final product of this projection would be an image of memory as coded neurons, its own constituents, collection.The most usual projection imposes an image on decoding each neuron notification and accepting the information. Due to this, not only that our own cathegory imposes on conclusion that each information note of our memory is immediately present , but also on its later reproduction. Extremely problematic seems to be the very moment of translating the note and decoding the information .The original problem has its roots in assumption of data storage into the memory -usual generalization implicates presence of all data ever received, as it points out to subconscious scope of the memory base. If the aspect of general memory frame is in the domain, which is not clearly defined as subconscious, memory shall, essentially, be an absolute opponent to its conscious part. Reflected note, data decoded into the conscious, in no case is it identical to the unreflected in unconscious memory base. Other problem is the act of transating itself.. In what way is it possible to translate meaning of something If its literal sense excels the general perception domain .Regarding the basic note being beyond range of our reflection, every form of its interpretation represents exclusively own reflection compromise. Obvious example is relation of data that we ,conditionally, process while dreaming. Dream reflection structure makes an impression that our selfconscious is present while dreaming. Nevertheless, problem is caused by the fact that the impression of selfreflection could only be in possession during the moment of translating information defined by dream. In order to simplify, content of dream exists only in presence of selfreflection, the conscious domain. Own perception,or mental self-deceit, comes out of the impression that selfreflection is being present even during dreaming. Assuming that content of dream exists only if content image is present, in that case “the true memory” of dream content (whatever it represents) during the very dreaming isn’t possible. Selfreflection, according to its own structure and essence , generates the content of dream itself, which isn’t possible on the level of unconscious. Materialists would formulate it on the grounds of existence and non-existence.I n order to make a precise genealogy ,these terms will not be used .Reader might notice that if we define dream as reflective translation illusion, out of the content range it couldn’t be possible to talk about the very content. In analyzing this problem it comes to conclusive evidence that analytical process infinitely results in reproducing itself. In a word, subject of analyzing becomes subject of examination. As for it,any form of its superficial image comes out of examination process ultimately. A dream is own, reversible , Uroboros ; its content is just a projection of mind being unable to give a meaning to its own determination,t o the unconscious

Visit Sciencomatica.com!