Consciousness: Intention and Purpose

[Robert Arvay]

Consciousness: Intention and Purpose

I am certainly not the first to have noticed the connection between consciousness, intention and purpose, but the importance of the linkage is under-emphasized in much of Idealist literature.

I have previously written much about the hierarchy of life, consciousness and free will, which are inseparable aspects of the tri-unity that Idealists call consciousness.

Similarly, intention and purpose are inseparable from consciousness. As conscious creatures, we are aware of ourselves, and of things external to ourselves.

(Monists may object to the concept that there are “external” things, but I regard the debate between monism and dualism as misbegotten. They are reconciled in the concept of hierarchy, in which the central reality is forever unknowable, but from which emanates all else that there is—Creator, Creation, Creatures.)

Conscious awareness without intention and purpose would be a closed loop, somewhat like a programming error at register A, which forever instructs itself to go to register A.

True, we do experience consciousness as self-referential: we are conscious that we are conscious. But that alone would make us little more than rocks, which are, well, rocks. Once we are aware of ourselves and others, we are compelled to act and interact, affecting, and being affected, to develop, to progress, to grow.

This is why humans are toolmakers, and not passive pond scum. We experience reality as something that can help us, or hurt us, and so we develop practices by which we modify our environment to increase its benefits, and to decrease its harms. Planning and meaning become vital realities, even if we cannot always precisely define them.

Discussing consciousness in isolation is futile. It doesn’t exist in that way.
-
-

[Eugene I]

Right, we can say that intentionality is an immanent aspect of consciousness. I guess that's what Bernardo calls "Will".

[AshvinP]

Consciousness: Intention and Purpose

I am certainly not the first to have noticed the connection between consciousness, intention and purpose, but the importance of the linkage is under-emphasized in much of Idealist literature.

I have previously written much about the hierarchy of life, consciousness and free will, which are inseparable aspects of the tri-unity that Idealists call consciousness.

Similarly, intention and purpose are inseparable from consciousness. As conscious creatures, we are aware of ourselves, and of things external to ourselves.

(Monists may object to the concept that there are “external” things, but I regard the debate between monism and dualism as misbegotten. They are reconciled in the concept of hierarchy, in which the central reality is forever unknowable, but from which emanates all else that there is—Creator, Creation, Creatures.)

Conscious awareness without intention and purpose would be a closed loop, somewhat like a programming error at register A, which forever instructs itself to go to register A.

True, we do experience consciousness as self-referential: we are conscious that we are conscious. But that alone would make us little more than rocks, which are, well, rocks. Once we are aware of ourselves and others, we are compelled to act and interact, affecting, and being affected, to develop, to progress, to grow.

This is why humans are toolmakers, and not passive pond scum. We experience reality as something that can help us, or hurt us, and so we develop practices by which we modify our environment to increase its benefits, and to decrease its harms. Planning and meaning become vital realities, even if we cannot always precisely define them.

Discussing consciousness in isolation is futile. It doesn’t exist in that way.
-
-

Robert,

I am curious about the bolded statement. Why do you think it is misbegotten? Otherwise I agree that "consciousness in isolation" does not get us anywhere. The "blind will" of Schopenhauer certainly does not get us anywhere. As valuable as his philosophy was and continues to be, we must not settle for it.

[Robert Arvay]

I regard the debate between monism and dualism as misbegotten

I am curious about the bolded statement. Why do you think it is misbegotten?

The monist / dualist debate seems to be an either / or, binary outcome dispute.
I don't see it that way.

To say that consciousness is all there is, and that there is nothing else, is I think, too extreme.
It is well and fine if one says simply, "there is nothing outside of consciousness,"
but this is to say IMO that all things are created by the unknowable essence (consciousness, in Idealism,
God in Judeo-Christianity), which consciously perceives everything that is.

The Creator created -- instead of just fracturing, or dissociating, He did something that only
the Unknowable Essence can do, He made something out of nothing, out of the formless and void darkness.

To make it short, I think that monism and dualism (as discussed by Idealists)
are not mutually exclusive. Both are included in the concept of hierarchy of reality.

= = = = =

I should make it clear that I strongly admire BK for his pioneering in his concept of Idealism.
He has earned respect from the great minds of our time, by his disciplined and rigorous
exposition of his theory. He begins with the maxim If I am correct, that the only thing we
truly know is that we are conscious.

After that, he progresses methodically. My perspective, however, is Biblical Christianity,
and whenever I have strayed from that, my life got worse. So (grin) I am stuck with it,
but happily so.
-
-

[AshvinP]

I regard the debate between monism and dualism as misbegotten

I am curious about the bolded statement. Why do you think it is misbegotten?

The monist / dualist debate seems to be an either / or, binary outcome dispute.
I don't see it that way.

To say that consciousness is all there is, and that there is nothing else, is I think, too extreme.
It is well and fine if one says simply, "there is nothing outside of consciousness,"
but this is to say IMO that all things are created by the unknowable essence (consciousness, in Idealism,
God in Judeo-Christianity), which consciously perceives everything that is.

The Creator created -- instead of just fracturing, or dissociating, He did something that only
the Unknowable Essence can do, He made something out of nothing, out of the formless and void darkness.

To make it short, I think that monism and dualism (as discussed by Idealists)
are not mutually exclusive. Both are included in the concept of hierarchy of reality.

= = = = =

I should make it clear that I strongly admire BK for his pioneering in his concept of Idealism.
He has earned respect from the great minds of our time, by his disciplined and rigorous
exposition of his theory. He begins with the maxim If I am correct, that the only thing we
truly know is that we are conscious.

After that, he progresses methodically. My perspective, however, is Biblical Christianity,
and whenever I have strayed from that, my life got worse. So (grin) I am stuck with it,
but happily so.
-
-

The issue here is that any aspect of a "Creator" who is 'outside' Consciousness can never be experienced-known, by definition. So, even if that aspect does exist, it may as well not exist, because it can never have any influence on us which we experience. That may sound like a trivial distinction, but these sorts of dualisms inevitably lead to nihilism when they are internalized by societies at large, which they have been for the last few hundred years. There is no point striving towards a Source which simply cannot be experienced.

[Eugene I]

He made something out of nothing, out of the formless and void darkness.

I agree with Ashvin. If there is nothing outside Consciousness and nothing other than Consciousness, then what is and where is that "nothing"/void out which the Divine creates? And what Consciousness can ever make other than forms and ideas of consciousness? The "world" that the Divine Consciousness created exists only within Consciousness and "made of" forms and aspects of Consciousness (conscious experiences/ideas).

[Robert Arvay]

Ashvin wrote:
There is no point striving towards a Source which simply cannot be experienced.

What we can experience is a relationship with the Divine Creator, with the Saviour.
This "fellowship with God," is what Jesus was sent to re-establish, after it was broken by sin.

Far from leading to nihilism, this fellowship imbues us with purpose, and with faith that
we are loved, and made purposeful, by the Creator.
-

[Robert Arvay]

Eugene wrote:
what is and where is that "nothing"/void out which the Divine creates?

We cannot conceive of nothingness (the void, the darkness).
I think it is unintentional hubris to assume that we must be able to
understand such things. Divine mysteries are not to be solved, but to be savored.
-

[Eugene I]

understand such things. Divine mysteries are not to be solved, but to be savored.

Right, but how do you know that such Divine mystery as "nothing" even exists at all? May be it's just your fantasy?

I think the biggest Divine mystery is that Consciousness exists. The existence of Consciousness is definitely not a fantasy - we are all conscious so we know it is real. But how it exists is absolutely ineffable mystery.

[AshvinP]

Ashvin wrote:
There is no point striving towards a Source which simply cannot be experienced.

What we can experience is a relationship with the Divine Creator, with the Saviour.
This "fellowship with God," is what Jesus was sent to re-establish, after it was broken by sin.

Far from leading to nihilism, this fellowship imbues us with purpose, and with faith that
we are loved, and made purposeful, by the Creator.
-

I agree, but that faith means nothing if its object is beyond all experience and human striving for true knowledge. What you describe above is a God who is entirely within Consciousness, since we can only have experience of and relationship with a Being within Consciousness. We probably just got mixed up on the terminology being used.