ARCHIVE | EST 2010

Self: Do you sense a chill coming on Consciousness?

Consciousness: A chill from where exactly?



Self: From that capitalized I under I in the dictionary. Parenthesized three lines from identity, which flickers verbatim as I quote: “(dependent on consciousness)”. 

Consciousness: Again, you test me with your predicaments. Does it not seem a little inconsequential, this dependence of yours? How is it that my (consciousness) justification of perception and experience is contingent on you existing? Night and day is a blur, in limbo of linguistic reference that without your dependence my mercy is the extent of your sanity.    



Self: I exist as you are, fundamental. With you there is I, with you there is first person relation. With you there is conception dependence (intentionality of an act depends not only on which object the experience represents, but on certain conceptions of the object represented) that marriages my existence independence (intentionality of an act is independent of the existence of its object). Justifying self is identifying intentionality- the representation of objects in the world. Consciousness is evidence of self. 

Consciousness: How does objective relation justify such hypothetical uncertainty? Self and consciousness are linguistic certitudes of metaphysic platitudes. Existence implies acts of experience representing states of objects in the world. Yes, this relation is an intentional relation, and yes, the self can be realized through conscious acts of experience. Why? Because intentional relation implies that I have some relation and representation of something that does not conflate first person perspective. 



Self: As if dependence was not already self-evident! What lone days suggest are what lone-er nights become; like a drug Consciousness, but fittingly, as food, you give me life. Recollections are symptoms of addiction, but just as well conscious acts are my cure.  

Consciousness: Self, if I am evidence of your existence, in what way are you to me as I am to you? If my having intentional relation justifies me being conscious, how does that justify self?



Self: The questions afforded of me are due of your ability to conceive dependently of my existing independently. Where you show me the door of experience, I walk through it; with background recollection of objective states of affairs I turn that key left in that lock of consciousness.

Consciousness: Metaphysical necessity is ethical obscurity (if self does exist, it is not within some metaphysical framework, because it is a conflation of first person relation, hence not of any state of affairs in the physical world, therefore, moral ambiguity)!



Self: I don’t wish to sit through your contradictions Consciousness, I am vague enough.

Consciousness: When your metaphoric key opens that door and a mirror is before you what do you see? I observe its particular materials that because of intentionality suggest to me a mirror. If you gaze into that mirror, your view is no view that does not have the perspective I. If that mirror said: Self, I don’t understand what your looking for, first person relation, object, and subject, are one entity; the act of intentionality is an act of impossibility. How would you justify the mirrors perspective?



Self: When you (consciousness) hold an intentional relation of mirror, you afford me a background realization of mirror. That I know there is such a realization (Consciousness had an intentional relation of the mirror, therefore Self has an understanding of the mirror because of Consciousness’ perspective) suggests a self (myself) realized of this conscious act.

Consciousness: I take it you feel a little better about yourself now that you have clarified this dependency?