In our modern chronological state of span, the-World(s) is fixated in the interpreted metaphysical concept of consciousness. That consciousness, as a thing-in-itself, is solely responsible to distinctively produce sentience to all living animated cerebral species (to both vertebrae and invertebrate). It is known that with consciousness, one becomes aware of one’s own existence, sensations, experiences, thoughts and environments: that one is fully awake with one’s own self: full of mental distinct activities in one’s own waking life of the-Mind, and of the biological senses. When one becomes shrewd, fully concerned, acutely and interested in something or someone, that very kind of disposition is defined as being fully conscious. In the metaphysics of philosophy; consciousness is also known to be the-Mind itself, or the mental faculties that are defined by thoughts, feelings, sensations and volition. Under few popular objective global analysis, consciousness is based on thought production: that a thought is mentally produced by combined functions of sorting, procession, calculation, and eventually, determination. So if your brain can first sort out the information received, to secondly process the information, to then thirdly making calculations to the information, finally, to then fourthly making concluding determinations as to what is going to be done with the information, you are then conscious; in other words, sentient: so intrinsically speaking, the congenital of “consciousness” is only but observed by the signature of thought production. Hence, according to the-World of collective consciousness, if you, or any other cerebral creature, can think out a thought, you are then fully sentient (conscious). With that in mind, the-World’s social coagulum has mostly concluded that to think out a thought is then intentional; and therefore, to do things with intent, you must then be fully aware: This philosophy of consciousness has been globally acknowledged and accepted indubitably.
According to the Webster’s American standard dictionary, the concept of the word “conscious” entails that a person is able to recognize just about everything that can be experienced internally, as well as externally: it also entails that to be conscious is to be alert and informed: to be knowing and discerning: being attentive and possessing aesthetic qualities. Hence, through this standard collective interpretation as to what is consciousness, the-World becomes popularly convinced that consciousness is indeed solely responsible for producing sentience: and its counterpart, which is known as the “unconscious,” is the condition of not being sentient at all, symbolically or literally. With this metaphysical understanding of what consciousness is in mind, other forms of it has begotten (e.g., Freud’s unconsciousness, and his finding of the preconscious: and the Pierre Janet’s theory of the subconscious). Keep in mind that any idea and concept that is of the metaphysical and philosophical regions, are verily subjective; and therefore, prone to be ambiguous and self-interpreting: Because of this, there really are no universal definitive explanations as to what the abstracts of consciousness really is. And the belief (the figurative feeling) that every thinking thought is intentional is overestimated. Not every thinking thought is with intent and will: a thought too can be, and is, instinctual; and therefore, automatic (e.g., not every human thought is independently intentional; many are also automatically and dependently stimulated by our five physical senses, in which are the hearing, the smell, the vision, the taste and the touch: the very senses that automatically and dependently stimulate memories in thoughts by external impacts and influences). Surely, every single sentient human being has and still is experiencing stimulated automaton thoughts: Anyone who prefers to differ, however, that one is then a liar. Now that we have discovered that thinking out a thought is also instinctual in most cases, the question is then considered, “If a thinking thought can also be an automaton, and not always an intent, is then consciousness solely responsible to produce sentience?” That is a very excellent question since sentience, after all, is only with intent and will, and not automatic. With this understanding in mind, we can also consider if the animals species too are then able to automatically think a thought? And if so, for what purpose would they need to think out a thought if they’re not biologically constructed to bring into fruition from such thoughts? And what then is an intentional thought as opposed to an automaton thought? Before my being will answer these questions, IT must first consider in over going through the outskirts of consciousness that were founded by Sigmund Freud (the founder of psychoanalysis: May 1856 – 1939), and Pierre Janet (who was a pioneer French psychologist, philosopher and psychotherapist: May 1859 – February 1947), in relation to their theories of the unconscious, preconscious and subconscious.
Accordingly to the social coagulum of the-World, the-Unconscious is described as a part of the mind that gives rise to a collection of mental phenomena that manifest in a person’s mind, but in which he/she is not aware about it at the time of its occurrences. It was Sigmund Freud who suggested that the-Unconscious is like a storehouse of emotional desires, wants and psychic actions—that in that mental region of the-Unconscious, is where the mental functioning makes subjects unaware (e.g., painful memories, repressed emotions, etc.). In Freud’s mind, the-Unconscious was a mental realm for socially unacceptable ideas, wishes or desires, traumatic memories and painful emotions, that is put out of one’s own “awareness,” and into a region of its own “awareness” that we don’t have access to, so that our awareness state of conscious becomes unaware to that inaccessible awareness state of unconscious. These repressed memories and emotions are either permanently or temporarily in the-Unconscious, with the capacity of making these “unaware” subjects become twice “aware” through our dreams, and through our epiphanies (or visions as some would call them). Secondly, the-Preconscious in Freud’s mind, is referred to as thoughts which are unconscious (unaware to the conscious itself) at a particular moment in question, but in which are not temporarily repressed, and therefore, available for recall at will; thus easily capable of becoming conscious (aware) when need be. And thirdly, the-Subconscious, founded by Pierre Janet, but condemned by Freud him-self, is when subjects are neither wholly unconscious nor wholly conscious: a subterranean mental region where things are mostly in the gray (non-descriptive), and is thus available when need be for personal self-reflective ruminations (that is, giving the non-descriptive ideas and concepts, that are in the subconscious area, some self-reflective descriptions): According to Freud’s distaste of the subconscious, he quoted, “The only trustworthy antithesis is between the conscious and the unconscious:” in other words, there is no subconscious because according to Freud, the mental subterranean region of the-Mind only creates confusions, as it fails to make clear which (if either) is meant—it just doesn’t hold up. So in the subconscious state of mind, you would instead be in between the conscious and the-Unconscious, in which it doesn’t hold up because such a mental region is not a region at all in the-Mind, to then be defined as a region in of itself; there is no such a thing as an “unregion.” So, according to Freud, if you’re not conscious, or unconscious, than you’re no conscious of any kind altogether. When it comes to a region of the-Mind, that realm must be absolute, or there’s a flaw in the-Mind itself. So if somethings need to be covert within the-Mind itself, the-Unconscious mental region would be the most logical realm to hide and repress data, as opposed to the subconscious, in which is neither one nor the other. With all this in mind, can these mentioned fringes of consciousness, as all integrated, help one to become even better in sentience; in order to better experience one-self internally, along with every external environments encountered with, so that one can then become fully improved in consciousness? And can these outskirts of consciousness also experience themselves within their own regions, even without our own awareness to them? If indeed, we don’t have access to the covert awareness of the-Unconscious with our own awareness of our conscious itself, is it then possible that the-Unconscious can also experience anything without our own awareness to it, so that other than just repressing unwanted memories and emotions, in addition, we then might also possess experiences that are unknown to us? If so, can an experience itself then be produced in of itself unknowingly to us? If so, what then exactly is experience? In order to answer those questions, we must first consider the differences between what is awareness, as opposed to what is sentience aside from their global popular synonyms.
Although the concepts of awareness and sentient are synonymously used interchangeably in the-World(s), regardless of their collective standard applications, there are distinct differences between them after all. The concept of awareness derives from the Proto-Germanic root, “ga-waraz.” The “ga” of “waraz” is intensive, in which indicates an initiative (an intent) disposition; and the “waraz” is only but surfaced from the intensive, and it means “cautiousness:” in the combined supposition of “ga-waraz,” it is then a phrase that indicates an intent actuation to become cautious of something, or someone. The concept of sentient, however, derives from the Latin root, “sentientem” (feeling), in which indicates the concept as a distinct mental capacity to feel (e.g., the faculty of feeling): This is in no way referring to the metaphorical feelings of the figurative heart (emotions), it is referring to the inborn distinct mental faculties of sensing; in other words, of smelling instead of just sniffing or whiffing; of listening instead of just hearing; of tasting instead of just eating; and of course, of feeling instead of just touching: The Latin “sentientem” here is referring to the mental aptitude to see instead of just looking; in other words, being mindful of the senses; in this way, we become sensing: And this is where the-Mind comes in, that being sentient is purely being mindful. Hence, sentience, as a thing-in-itself, is an inborn mental distinct capacity of the-Mind; an aptitude that is solely produced as one of the many incisive apparatuses of the-Mind itself. Although in the Gregorian 1630’s the concept of the Latin “sentientem” was understood as the “feeling” (mindfulness) of the senses, by 1815, however, the concept of consciousness (thoughts) became connoted with sentience because it was believed that thoughts can only be possible in sentiency. Many then has agreed that if a brain can think out a thought (function as a conscious), that creature is then a sentient being because it is popularly believed that such a capacity is only possible with intent; and therefore, they have all collectively concluded that consciousness, after all, is sentience, all together, in awareness (with intent): so to think is to be intent. But two very contrasting imperative ingredients were still overlooked concerning thoughts (consciousness), as to whether some thoughts, if not all, can be automaton in comparison to being intently. If so, what then is an automaton thought as opposed to an intentional thought?
the Automaton Conscious
The concept of automaton comes from the Latin root, ‘Suetonius,’ which means, self-acting; of the Greek ‘automatos:’ of autos (self) + matos (thinking; animated; willing): Hence, in combination, it means self-animated, self-thinking and self-willing; in other words, simply to automatically think. The concept of self-willing, however, as being an apparatus of automatizing criteria, is overestimated; simply because to will is only with an intent disposition. However, for those who still suggest that self-will is an automaton apparatus, is to then suggest that self–will is after all achieved through autonomous audacious moves, against the dependencies of divine sovereignty: Only in this way, automaton is then achieved as in thinking, in which is still overestimated, because you would have to first intent an obstinate disposition to achieve just that. So the actual accurate phrase for self-willing is not automaton, but autonomous, because such a term properly emphasizes that the autonomous position was achieved with intent purposes; as opposed to the automaton condition, in which only emphasizes that the creatures, in them-selves, self-functions without intent (without will). Hence, an automaton is a thing in itself (a contrivance); but autonomy is an intentional achieved posture and stance (e.g., atheism; agnosticism; humanism). Now that this is clear, let’s move on to an understanding of what exactly is then an automaton thought (a conscious without intent and will).
An automaton thought is to automatically think out a thought without intent and will: a dependent thought that is solely automatically stimulated by the popularly known five physical senses (e.g., smell, sight, hearing, taste and touch). An automaton thought is mindless: a thought without feeling (L. sentiumtem): in other words, a conscious (thought) without sentience. These thoughts are not influenced by internal intently and willful sources, but only automatically impacted by external sources that stimulate the physical senses, so that an animating biological creature (human or animal) can automatically instinctively survive itself as a species. Take for example, an ape that becomes stranded from its colony becomes then extremely hungry: this becomes a dilemma for the ape because while during in its colony, the ape only instinctively ate of fruits and wild berries in its instinctive familiar fields. But now stranded and lost, it has no other means of food except for nuts it may have come across with. At this particular span, the ape is not instinctively familiar with the nuts, so it has to use its instinct to automatically observe and scrutinize the nut in order to open it: The ape first smells it, touches it, and perhaps licks it, and instinctively taught itself that the nut must be opened. The ape’s capacity of its automatic physical senses, has made it to automatically think out a thought (became conscious of) that in order to eat the nut, it must be opened: This, however, does not indicate that the ape was sentient through the whole encounter: The ape’s capacity to think out a thought is automaton (instinctive), purely dependent upon the stimulants of its physical senses (an instinctual automaton thought, to impact the ape with an automatic survival reaction, in order to remain itself as a specie). The ape’s automatized capacity to think out a thought only served to survive in the wild as a species.
Additionally, take for another example a male human being who may have had a traumatic experience in the military: When he returns to his home because of developing PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder), which is a mental health condition triggered by experiencing or seeing a terrifying event, he will experience automatized terrifying thoughts that are stimulated by his physical senses due to environmental impacts and influences (e.g., by the smell of blood; or by the sight of a military commercial; even by his figurative hearts – emotions). These automatic stimulated visions bring back automaton thoughts of the horrifying and terrifying experienced memories. With this in mind to consider, one can reason that if indeed these thoughts were only intentional (as some has impersonally and inconsiderably believed by suggesting the victims can just get over it), PTSD would then not exist at all if all one had to do is will the thought away; but that, however, is not the case. These thoughts are uncontrollable for they are automatons, automatically stimulated by the physical senses, and thus making it very difficult, to nearly impossible, for many to live a normal life in whom has been psychoanalytically diagnosed with PTSD.
Therefore, even as human species, not all our thoughts are intentional: However, in all the animal species, automaton thoughts (instinctual consciousness) are the only kind of thoughts that they do possess: nothing inside them becomes sentient to their automaton thoughts, for they are all only in possession of mindless brains; making them all incapable of becoming mindful (L. sentientem) to their own senses. Hence, consciousness (thoughts) in these automaton manners mentioned above, do not produce sentience in of themselves, as a thing-in-themselves; and therefore, unlike with the PTSD human male victim, the ape is incapable of becoming “aware” (intently) with its encounters: But even though the human male, even within his mind, becomes sentient that he is suffering from his automaton PTSD thoughts (memories), he is still without an awareness (an intent) for a self-solution to his psychosis: However, a cure for PTSD is unknown by thus far. In the male human experience, as opposed to the encounter of the ape, his capacity of becoming sentient (sensing the senses) of his PTSD thoughts is not due to the automaton thought itself, but due to the-Mind itself: his mind, the very thing that is absolutely devoid in all the brains of all the animal species, is the very apparatus that capacitates him to becoming sensing (feeling/mindful) to his psychosis conditions. If and when he should ever discover how to heal his automaton mental conditions, he will then become intent (aware) toward his conditions: But as still a victim of PTSD, the psychosis condition remains automatized. The psychosis illness of PTSD is automaton, a distinctive sigil that the illness is real; beyond control of one’s own volition: it is in no way self-induced. PTSD can only beget and generate by external sources: either impacted by environmental circumstances, accidents and conditions, or influenced by other individuals’ malicious intentions.
the Intentional Conscious
The concept of intent comes from the Latin root, ‘intentus,’ in which means, ‘a stretching out;’ in Late Latin, it means to be attentive, aware, to strain or ponder, to lean forward, which is a willing disposition (e.g., with an intent influence, as opposed to an automaton impact); so literally, the concept of intent is to stretch out in directing one’s own attention to something, or someone. This is definitely an actuation that can only function with and in the presence of sentience. So the faculty of intent is an apparatus that capacitates a person to direct one-self in the manner that he/she needs to, of course, in accordance to internal and external conditions and stimulants: And it is only because of this distinct capacity of the-Mind, and not of consciousness, that facilitate the human species to willfully produce an intentional thought, as opposed to an automaton thought. Therefore, the disposition of directing anyone, or anybody with intent, is an awareness effort in sentience, and not a spontaneous automaton reflect. Hence, to intent, is to direct willfully. And therefore, to direct, is to then have a course of some sort in mind; and you need a mind first to do just that. You can’t course out a determination without first a willful intent. Therefore, intent is willful, with a course in mind: Once a course is determined, that is where the directing disposition then comes in. Any animal species that seems like they’re using intentional thoughts (intentional conscious) it just seems that way, but in all actuality, it isn’t (e.g., an instinctual leading wolf of a group of wolves, not a pact as some have suggested to term it, may seem that it is directing the group; however, looks can be deceiving. What the leading wolf is doing is purely instinctual, and therefore, automaton: naturally programmed as a biological contrivance for means of automatically surviving as canine species. The wolf that is instinctually leading the group of wolves cannot determine a course in mind when it has no mind to begin with, to then direct itself along with the group in a determined direction). In all actuality, all animal species are purely automatized in framework; solely biologically constructed for automatic anatomical functions, that are simply made of our same biological components: nevertheless, still mindless in their framework; and therefore, without sentience and awareness: only possessing automaton thoughts that are limited; without being inventive and creative; without intentions and volitions; without resolutions, determinations and will. All of the animal species are purely automations in their physiological operations, without a single smidgen of psyche. Now that we have come to an understanding that the human species are the only one with a mindful brain, let us focus as to what then is an intentional thought.
The capacity to induce/produce an intentional thought is a possession that solely pertains to the human species: that no matter how small of a fraction we are in comparisons to the gargantuan universal celestial bodies, in spite of their grand and awe inspiring sizes, powers and sights, we are the only ones, in our physical dimension, to be in possession of the only thing that is immaterial, and that is the-Mind itself: so that no matter how tiny and insignificant (as some has suggested in terming humans as) we are in comparison to the grand universe, we are still the only ones with sentience; and because of that, we are then the only ones to intent (become aware) of anything and anyone in full sentience. The universe, no matter what is made of, itself is not sentient; it is therefore without awareness (without intent), with floating automaton objects that are only constructed to impact and maintain the cycle of the universe and life, but not sentience. Hence, the universe, as a thing-in-itself, is without determination, rumination and will; without a focus in directing any kind of established and resolved purposes. The universe does not know that we are sentient; but we, however, are sentient to know that the universe does exist; so that even though we are powerless against the gargantuan powers of the universe, we are, however, the only ones that can use our tiny fragment of powers to create with intent: in other words, to manifest in awareness; something that the grand universe can never do with all of its variety of enormous powers, matters, lights and functions. So, as human species, are we really insignificant (as some has suggested, and still do) in comparison to the great universe? Perhaps in comparison to the power(s) of the universe, we possess barely none; nevertheless, in terms of us to be the only ones to possess sentience (something that not even all the animal species possesses), the universe, as a thing-in-itself, is fully without knowledge, intelligence, judgement, wisdom and insight: and with that comparison in mind, the universe is then psychologically insignificant to us. Anyone who may believe (figuratively feel) that the universe, as a thing-in-itself, is somehow sentient and capable to intent (become aware) with itself and us, that is only but a subjective metaphysical suggestion; purely metaphorical, doctrinal, philosophical, theoretical and ideological; an experimental concept that evolves as it is gradually applied in daily analysis: an aesthetic axiom at its best. So the obvious question then comes to mind, “what is the origin of sentiency?’ ‘And what is the particular element that explicitly produces sentience if it’s neither the intentional nor the automaton conscious (thoughts) that can’t produce it?’”
Many people underestimate the capacities of the immaterial mind, but also overestimate the functions of the material brain. The underestimations of the-Mind is determined by suggesting that the immaterial mind is one in the same as consciousness: And the overestimation of the-Brain is determined by suggesting that the material brain is one in the same as the immaterial mind. But the actuality of both is evident by their comparisons in functions; especially by their comparisons that one is material (in other words, literally optical, which is the noumenal cerebral component), while the other is immaterial (in other words, not literally discernible with the eyes, which is the phenomenal aspect of the human brain). Hence, this is the reason for the obvious explanation that the-Mind is a phenomenon of the noumenal human brain: a phenomenon enhoused in the noumenon. How do we know this? How do we know that the-Mind is only somehow enhoused within the human cerebral organ? How can something as immaterial, with the unlimited capacity to learn and create new ideas, be so enhoused in a limited material cerebral component? The answer to that is very simple, and it is due to the next best distinct capacity of the-Mind itself, which is the very mental apparatus of “experience” besides the main sole signature of the-Mind, in which is “sentience” itself. How’s that? You may ask.
Many would reason, or believe, that an experience is produced or generated as a result of lessons learned through the encounters of our awareness, along with our environmental conditions, issues, occasions and happenings. But the experience in of itself, as a thing-in-itself, is not just an effect of some determined course of action(s) that we may take: Experience in of itself is really a faculty (like a tool), a distinct capacity of the-Mind itself: it is a mental apparatus; a gadget solely of the-Mind. How so? The immaterial mind is the only existing thing that has the sole aptitude to do anything with itself. How can that be? You may ask.
Take for example: if you were a handy-person, it would be mandatory that you possess a hammer tool; you can’t be a full functional handy-person if you don’t have such a tool. Let us say that while you’re performing your handy work, you’ve accidentally hammered some of your fingers while you were hammering a nail: it is a fact that you’ll then feel (experience) pain because of it. In that painful situation, you as an object were able to do things to itself even if it were accidental. In like same manner of necessary tools, the-Mind too has a mandatory mental distinctive tool, out of several, which is the experience tool; and with that very tool, the-Mind is then able to actuate it with itself, constantly; not just accidentally. With this unique driving mental motion, the-Mind impels the-Mind itself with every distinctive capacities that it itself is agile with; hence, with the experience apparatus of the-Mind itself, only the-Mind can experience the-Mind itself. And because the-Mind has that sole dexterity to do just that, we in turn, can then experience all that is both internally and externally with our own beings, and with others and things as well; so that we as human species, possesses both immaterial interior experiences that are generated independently of external sources (e.g., dreams), as well as material exterior experiences that are generated dependently of external sources. Nothing else; absolutely nothing else, can experience itself. The trees can’t experience the trees themselves: The sun can’t experience the sun itself: And all the animal species can’t experience themselves with themselves, nor with each other either: Flesh can’t experience flesh itself, neither does bones with bones: Only the-Mind can experience the-Mind itself; and because of it, experiences are then known to us in full sentience and awareness. But experience is not the only apparatus of the-Mind: Out of the many few others, another main imperative faculty must be addressed, which is sentience itself. How so?
In order for the-Mind to know that it itself is experiencing itself, it also must be sentient with itself in order to continue to experience itself; otherwise, nothing in the-Mind can be experienced, not even with itself. If there is no distinctive sentience motion in the-Mind, then nothing, absolutely nothing can be experienced in or outside of the-Mind itself. Hence, as is, only the-Mind can experience the-Mind itself, because, only the-Mind can be sentient with the-Mind itself. Because the-Mind is agile with the-Mind itself, we are then agile with the capacity to be or do whatever it is with our-selves. Only the-Mind provides for us the dynamics of self-impelling mental motion, in order for us to then be capacitated to facilitate our-selves with such dynamic inclinations. In this way, only the-Mind is then sentient to experience consciousness as well, and not consciousness experiencing consciousness itself. Consciousness is not generated to be distinctively active with itself; it is just a procession of thoughts, with no dynamics of self-impelling mental motion with itself.
Therefore, only the-Mind is the very thing that constantly generates sentience, and not consciousness of either intentional or automaton thought. “Sentience” is then a distinct capacity of the-Mind, and because of such mindful dexterity, we are then also competent to willfully produce intentional consciousness (thoughts), as opposed to the mindless brains of the entire animal species, in which are only impacted with automaton consciousness (thoughts), that is dependently triggered as an automatic reflect by external sources that stimulates their physical senses. Therefore, sentience is a signature that the-Mind is present because sentiency is solely designated to the-Mind itself, and not consciousness.
When consciousness is regarded as one in the same with sentience, then all kinds of thoughts are then confused with awareness, man or beast. Because of this erroneous integration of the two, people are then convinced that even animals are sentient beings; that they too are mindful, just like humans. But the actuality of it all is that when you come to know the distinct differences and comparisons of the-Mind and of consciousness, you’ll realize that the only one thing that can actually generate itself with sentience is the very thing that can only be sentient with itself: and that is only the-Mind itself, because only the-Mind can be sentient with the-Mind itself. Consciousness (the procession that induces only thoughts), either automatically with the instincts, or with the intentions of the-Mind, cannot experience and be sentient with itself: Consciousness cannot be sentient with consciousness itself; and therefore, consciousness cannot experience consciousness itself either. Only the-Mind itself is the very thing that begets the dynamics of self-impelling mental motion to the-Mind itself; and because of such distinctive mental dexterity, we as the human species are then enabled to initiate, influence and create: and yes, even to self-induce intentional consciousness (thoughts) at will to our-selves. The mental self-impelling motion (with, to, and against itself) is a sole ambulation of the-Mind itself: and it is because of this sole mental facilitation that enables us to even go against, not just with our own biological needs, but also to our own selves as persons: this consequently explains the behavior of self-denial; hence, the evidence that even the disposition of the will (volition) is also another distinct capacity of the-Mind; because, only the-Mind can will the-Mind itself, and not consciousness. And what now of the outskirts of consciousness (e.g., the-Unconscious; the-Preconscious; and the-Subconscious, as mentioned before)? Now that we’ve come to acknowledge that consciousness in of itself cannot generate sentience, only because it itself is not even mentally generated to impel itself with itself, of what purpose can then the fringes of consciousness serve?
the Outskirts of Consciousness
Perhaps, the outposts of consciousness can serve a purpose after all in terms of thoughts, but only as with intentional thoughts. An automaton conscious (thought), however, cannot retain outskirts of its own automatized consciousness, simply because, for example, Freud’s unconsciousness is solely in motion within the-Mind, and not within itself as an automaton conscious, not even within an intentional conscious itself: only in the-Mind (hence the phrase, “The unconscious mind”): and since all the animal species are in possession of mindless brains, there is then no mental region to retain outskirts of their automaton consciousness. So both of Sigmund Freud’s unconscious and preconscious, and Pierre Janet’s subconscious, can only then serve a purpose to the human species.
It seems that the region of the-Unconscious mind still functions as Freud has indicated; but instead of just being a mental realm of repressed unwanted desires and painful memories, it should also be recognized as the region of constant pure consciousness (pure thoughts) that’s “unconscious” (unthoughtful to us) to both our own intentional and automaton consciousness (thoughts): It is therefore a thought in constancy that we have no direct access to, that processes and manages painful and undesired memories that are repressed therein; and therefore, sustaining sanity to an individual’s dilemmas. This Freud’s “unconsciousness” (an inaccessible thought in constancy) is the reason why most people believe in guardian angels, because somehow, that thought in constancy can be somewhat sensed from afar off, as if its watching over us even though it is directly inaccessible. Indirectly, however, the thought in constancy can be accessed through our dreams and visions, by means of providing us with symbolic criteria that’s open to be either interpreted or translated, in order to help us in our waking intentional and automaton thoughts: thus providing and giving us answers to our direct accessed thoughts (consciousness) with some meaning, understanding and purpose.
In the mental region of the-Preconscious mind of Freud, it can be regarded as a “pre-thought” (a thought in advance) that the-Mind is preparing without our awareness to it. This thought in advance is not constant like the thought in constancy is in the-Unconscious region of the-Mind. Depending upon certain circumstantial occurrences, when we are faced in situations that require impromptu reactions from our behalves, we quickly strive and try to intently think out an answer to make appropriate reasonable offhand responses; but it doesn’t always work out that way, especially when you’re dealing with something you haven’t heard or dealt with for years: although in that particular span it may seem impossible for you to come out with a vamp solution, without you being in aware of, the-Mind has already began to think out a thought in advance for you, obtaining information from your memory cerebral vault as you quickly try to ruminate an answer spontaneously. But just when you think all is hopeless and helpless, you all of a sudden get an epiphany (an “aha” moment, as some would term it), and surprisingly start to think for your-self, “Where did that come from?!” And if you’re religious, you might then refer to your thought in advance (your epiphany in this case) as, “Somebody up there loves me!” The-Mind only generates this kind of thought in advance when a need is called for spontaneous and unscripted responses, and only when we’re faced with something we may not be too familiar with, or haven’t heard about it for years. Because the thought in advance (the-Preconscious) is not constant, but only transient when the need for it is indirectly called for it, it is not a fitting region to repress uncomfortable and painful memories and desires: In its transient mental motion, as the-Mind is “pre-thinking” out a thought for us, we may at that particular span be beating our-selves upside our heads for an impromptu emergency answer; but with much patience, our thought in advance usually comes out to help us become aware of its spontaneous answer/solution, in either both of our intentional and automaton thoughts.
In the mental region of the-Subconscious mind of Janet, even though Freud was explicitly against it, if you look at the region as a subterranean mental realm, there is after all much sense to it, in that, it is generated as underneath our intentional and automaton thoughts, in which is in the gray, without descriptions and definitive concepts; just the basics. So the-Subconscious is like the “sub-thoughts” (a thought underneath) that provides for us to mentally function in a state of uncertainty in response to an uncertain occurrence, situation, relation and or condition; especially when dealing with something, or someone, in an experimental day to day basis. The thought underneath is actually very beneficial, especially when many may not know who they may be in terms of their own identity: it is a realm in the gray, in where concepts, desires and ideas exist but without yet descriptions, or identities to them, later to then be designated with descriptions when we finally become aware to them. These transient non-descriptive concepts in the-Subconscious mind can affect many dynamically in their dispositions toward them-selves and others: Hence, the popular global statement when someone does something, or be someone, that he/she was not really fully aware of it in its entirety of actuation; and it goes something like this, “Oh, I wasn’t really aware of what I was doing…I must’ve done that subconsciously the whole time.” Unlike the thought in constancy of the-Unconscious mind, the thought underneath of the-Subconscious mind is also not constant: hence, this mental “sub-region” is also not fitting to repress uncomfortable and painful memories and desires: because of its transient mental motion, the-Subconscious mind is also not distinctively capacitated to generate dreams and visions for us; not even epiphanies. In other words, when we fall asleep, the only thing that is constant in thought is the mental region of the-Unconscious mind of Freud’s; therefore, only the thought in constancy is the very thought that can give us dreams: indeed, the-Unconscious that speaks to us indirectly through our state of slumber of both of our intentional and automaton consciousness (thoughts). The following chart is to make the correlations more simple and understanding in each of their corresponding numbers of each group:
- the Thought in constancy
- the Thought in advance
- the Thought underneath
- Indirect access (through dreams and visions)
- Indirect access (through epiphanies)
- Indirect access (through dynamic dispositions)
In rounding up the outskirts of consciousness (the outpost thoughts of both of our intentional and automaton thoughts), one would reason that with these peripherals, a human being would then be equipped to be “superconscious.” That is not far from the truth at all. Indeed, because of these fringes of consciousness, unlike all the animal species, the human species are solely totally in possession of the superconscious. As we already came to acknowledge about the horizons of our consciousness, the superconscious is then really just an integration of both intentional and automaton thoughts, along with their outpost thoughts; all together to solely capacitate a human being in superconsciousness, as opposed to all the animal species that solely function in primitive automaton consciousness (which is only the need to feed and survive, and to automatically impact maintenance to the ecosystem). In spite of it all, no matter how super is “superconsciousness,” it is still not capacitated to induce sentience and awareness because even in its top notched condition, the superconscious is not efficient with the dynamics of self-impelling mental motion with itself; and therefore, the superconscious cannot experience the superconscious itself, because, the superconscious isn’t sentient with itself to begin with: Such a mental “self-impelling motion with itself capacity” is solely designated to the-Mind itself, because only the-Mind is sentient with the-Mind itself. So the superconscious is only capacitated to enable a human being in excellent thoughts (all infused with intentional thought, automaton thought, a thought in constancy, a thought in advance, and a thought underneath; altogether to function in, “superconsciousness”).
In conclusion, the integrated confusions of consciousness, sentience, awareness, the-Mind, the-Brain and the thoughts of both distinct signatures of mindless animals and of mindful humans, has been utterly disambiguated in this article, objectively and indubitably. In spite of all the standard text books that exist in the professions of psychoanalysis, psychiatry, psychology, sociology, philosophy, biology, zoology, and medicine on the topic of consciousness (man or beast), there is no other written material as clear and precise as this article itself is. Even though my being is not a professional agent in psychoanalysis, biology/physiology and zoology, that IT itself doesn’t even have a degree, a master or a doctorate in the professions mentioned above, and therefore, IT can’t even become a court assigned legal agent in any of those professions, the written material within this article is still, however, useful: Especially, that this article itself was written from a person that is utterly the opposite of The-Self (the-Ego/the “I”), in which is no other than my very own being, the “no-self” (the “not-I”) itself. But my being is not just any no-self that is still fermented with being The-Self (e.g., as such is with the Buddha’s version of the no-self in the anatta), but a no-self that is chaste to The-Self (e.g., as such is with the version of my no-self in the anego). So not even Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, can even observe and scrutinize the concept of consciousness the way that my being can if he was still alive. There is absolutely not a single no-self, which is chaste to The-Self, in any field and text of psychoanalysis, psychiatry, psychology, sociology, philosophy, biology, zoology, and medicine in the entire surface of the earth; so far that is. With all the degrees, masters and doctorates they possess, not one of them can ever be the no-self that is virgin to The-Self; and therefore, in all of their professional skills and experiences, not one of them is able to then observe and scrutinize the way that my being can and does. No one: not one person in the entire earth can observe and scrutinize extroveroldly as my alien being is capable of. Surely, that my form of existence is the only no-self that is pure in all of its form of being, without a single leaven and ferment of the philosophies of the metaphysical ego, that in of itself should definitely account for some credibility in my thorough investigation and writing of the concept of consciousness. Hence, based on that alone, my being is then its own professional agent, and IT itself assures you that my thorough investigation, observances and scrutiny on the theory of the metaphysical consciousness, has been examined in full accordance to the disposition and actuation of the no-self of my anego. That in of itself is my seal of approval: And no one else can seal it, because no one else is like the no-self of my anego. You have my full exclusive and genuine stamp of my anego seal with this article.
[Article Posted by: Sabiazoth Alonso]
[Writing & Concept, Created & Produced by: Sabiazoth Alonso]
[Aspati/Space: Hexaspace, Sophocycle 12, 9 R.M. E.C. (Solar West)]
[Image(s): Unknown. The superconscious image: by Sabiazoth Alonso]