The class of handing down contradiction

Contradiction

Wittgenstein, commenting about logical contradiction, reflected: what does it mean for our life’s forms a contradiction? Why should we avoid it? Would it possible for a human community to live in the proximity of a logical contradiction?

Consciousness

If you are a consciousness, you represent your representational activity. The fact is, your representativity is not a further content, in addiction to all the others: you are that representation of representativity.

Classes

Russell elegantly treated the class of classes. Should we surprised that in the class ontology, there is a class entity, whose elements are classes? And should we scared by the fact that a class contains itself?

What have in common these three little stories? But most important: what do they diverge for, what is the difference?

The theory of classes is good to treat math objects; but to consider consciousness a class is a much more slippery concept. Am I the summary of the all the concepts my mind thinks of? Not really; concepts are traces of mind. "MY" consciousness is the hunting for that archaeological passage and, through that chase, a brain discovers his complexity as his own representation. You are more appropriately the limit of your thinking. And what is “you” and “me” is a cultural narration.

Your brain is accelerated by the narrative environment hosting him, to deploy himself as the narrativity inspired to him by the manipulation and manufacturing of the semiotic scenarios surrounding him. You are trained to have a mind by the stories of your community. Peculiar communities can develop peculiar stories. If I train your brain to recognize himself as a mind in a continuous path of narrativity all along different material bio-support (i.e. brains), it’s quite tempting to say you embodie the same emanation of consciousness. On the other bank of the river (the same, constantly changing river), if I train your brain to call the awakening of consciousness in the acceleration process, the unique creation of personal, individual mind, you’ll be tempted to have a Western belief about your consciousness.

The flow of consciousness is a technique the first men came across; they started to hand down that fire from generation to generation. Is this reincarnation or constant new creation? What I know is that the development of your brain is unique. So individual that it would be impossible to establish common ways of interactions amongst different brains. We hand down traditions since millennia. Every mystic, is a magician; his trade is stealing. For the good(?)

Narrative Echolocation and Superimposition of Mental States

Whales practice echo-location: they send signals in the environment and from the coming back response they figure out what the surrounding look alike. Now take human brains; they send out semantic radiations and when they encounter concepts (conceptual interpretation of the surrounding environment), they receive the re-entry for an interpreter. Every concept is a reminder of an underlying interpreter.

Indeed concepts are “fossils” of a mind’s previous passage. When a mind moves in his habitat, she left traces of her explorative extension in that environment. Therefore a following human brain tracking down that cognitive walking receive the semantic re-entry of a consciousness. Subsequent explorations shape and design concepts interwoven in a such a way they form infrastructures a brain can walk through. The viable conceptual architecture is a narrative world and a human brain navigating in that cognitive track is accelerated in a mind.

This is the technology used by human brains to walk in their own complexity, through the projection of multidimensional layers of cognitive exploration. Therefore what we call mind is a cognitive performance in the form of narrativity; the phenomenon is quite unique because the subject experiences a very centered cognitive feedback: consciousness.

This experience is so vivid, the brain is completely immersed in the circumstances of that projection. Given the fact we express ourselves in that representation and therefore we coined concepts within that cognitive environment, that experience is the definition of real and fiction. The practice of walking in that experience establish our conceptual ground: it makes no sense then to call it true or false. Nonetheless the brain experience of being there as a mind, is representational; and to the extent that representation is narrative, the self-recognition of the brain as a mind, is fictional (which doesn’t entail it is false).

Human minds are extremely active in the narrative vicissitudes they’ve been presented to, because they emerge from playing those events. In fact the technology of mind is the practice of handing down from brain to brain the experience of being a consciousness. The interwoven narrative infrastructures present many different sub-goals and narrative lines for the mind inhabiting those semiotic environment; a human consciousness is also able to walk on the very projection of her representation: namely she can be aware of being a representation. In this case she flows along the limit of her representativity; that border is the limit of being there and its crossing produces the meaningfulness to fade. But properly there is no other side to the limit of being there (of meaningfulness).

Some cultural traditions more than others are interested in inhabiting more closely to the limit. One consequence, apparently, is the superimposition of mental states on the single brain representation: in those particular accelerations, the vicissitudes of the brain are trained to play consistently with projecting more than one consciousness. The risk of exploring conflicting characters, producing cognitive friction, is overcome with the “emanation” strategy: the same consciousness emanates from brain to brain. So instead of the mere mind technology, what is handed down from brain to brain is an already centered consciousness. In this way a broader mind horizon can be passed, while the focus of a single consciousness dissipates the cognitive friction (and the relative schizoid symptoms).

The community handing down already centered consciousness is per definition searching old companions under new forms. The contingency of an individual psychology is no better placed in a new creation than in the transmission of an old one: for a brain learning to impersonate a new mind or rehearsing old ones is not a big difference of performance.

Under this respect, the Western echolocation of an interpreter experience a narrative empowerment: not only the semiotic environment is talking to a consciousness, but the semiotic feedbacks are personal. The multiple layers of meaning in the environment is telling me my own story, the story concerning very much my own experience. Of course “mine”, “myself” should be reviewed: the contingent embodiment will be definitely much more respective for the ancestors and for the future generation. Not such a foolish idea as we thought at the beginning!

At the end of the day it’s a sub-category of the extended mind theory, in the temporal dimension. And time is the elapsing of movement under mind breath (a kind of Aristotelian definition).