THE DIALECTICAL MATRIX:

Towards Phenomenology as a Science
 

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.

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.

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 “intro‑reflected” 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 i