The goal of all research and philosophical inquiry into what the mind is and how it works begins and ends on this one question; "what is consciousness?" "One of the first tasks will be to prove that if we posit an "I" or subject as that which is proximally given, we shall completely miss the phenomenal content of Dasein. Ontologically, every idea of a 'subject' - unless refined by a previous ontological determination of its basic character - still posits the subjectum along with it, no matter how vigorous one's ontical protestations against the 'soul substance' or the 'reification of consciousness'. The Thinghood itself which such reification implies must have its ontological origin demonstrated if we are to be in a position to ask what we are to understand positively when we think of the unreified Being of the subject, the soul, the consciousness, the spirit, the person. All these terms refer to definite phenomenal domains which can be 'given form': but there are never used without a notable failure to see the need for inquiring about the Being of the entities thus designated. So we are not being terminologically arbitrary when we avoid these terms - or such expressions as 'life' and 'man' - in designating those entities which we are ourselves." Being and TIme, H.46 This is an elaborate way of saying that when we talk of "consciousness", when we reify the phenomenon as a noun, we are hermeneutically covering up the functional nature of the phenomenon and can learn nothing. Heidegger makes this point with regard to the cogito sum of Descartes, arguing that Descartes missed the definition of the sum, and by not explicating the nature of the question of being, failed to understand the true nature of "I think". In this inquiry, in accordance with what Heidegger here argues, we have never used such terms as "consciousness", but we are now at a juncture where we wish to explain this concept because it is this word by which the higher functions of the Entity of Dasein are commonly understood. We should note then that Heidegger began the above passage with, "if we posit an "I" or subject as that which is proximally given, we shall completely miss the phenomenal content of Dasein", which means to say that we should not use the subject as a premise, but in having already formulated an ontology of Being within the framework of Dasein, it is possible to approach the subject and not lose the phenomenal qualities that are held within. Thus, having defined Descartes' sum, we should use this avenue as access to the reified nature of the self as "consciousness" as a means to define the cogitare. Firstly, we commonly understand that consciousness is a property of the action of the human brain, the human instance of Dasein. As the human Dasein is a product of evolution, we know that our ancestors, or other species of Earth, at some point did not or do not possess this function, yet there is an anatomical and functional similarity between them, therefore there must be some point of departure, some difference between them, and in identifying this difference we can isolate where consciousness resides and so what it is as a function. It is well understood from medical history, diagnosis of trauma or intentional medical practice itself and more recently medical imaging, that the frontal lobe of the brain is where the higher functions of the brain that we associate with "consciousness" occur. Secondly, before the definition begins we shall lay out the aims of the argument. Now because "consciousness" certainly doesn't have a single meaning or definition, it has never been founded logically or algorithmically, and in reality when people talk of "consciousness" they mean a great many mental functions, some of which we have already defined, we shall have to be more definite in our goal. As the term refers to the higher brain functions in question, we shall say that consciousness is "the phenomenon of 'perception' of Entities, of the self, of things in the world and of one's inner voice". With this in mind, our argument will take two steps:
The perception of the Self Let's return our consideration to the diagram of the frontal lobe from the section on Action:  Now, all Entities have their foundations, their basis for Being-in-the-World in the sensory half interrelations. It is from there that the very constituent parts that make up the totality of the Being of all Things within the World come to represent the higher order Entities that are representative of the Entity Now and are thence Anticipated. Once Anticipated they become Potentialities-for-Being within the frontal lobe, but here exactly the same thing happens, only, as we saw in the section on regulation, Interpretation starts to produce temporality, a physical or logical movement of the Entities. Of all Entities the most primordial and important is the Entity of Self. We saw how it comes to be formed through simple interaction with the They, but here we are going to explore this in more detail to understand how this Entity comes to define Subject and Object. The Self Entity as Subject Simply in becoming a Star Entity, the Entity of Self defines the nature of Subject. In being Interpreted, through synthesis, with many, if not every-Thing(s) in the World of the young instance of Dasein, the Self Entity achieves Interpretative dominance. Each Thing is "My Thing", each Action and feeling, My Action and My feeling. There are other Entities of the They, "mum's Thing" or "father's Thing", and such Entities may have initial dominance, but all lose out within a few years to the Star Entity of Self. Dominance provides a priority to Interpretation, a logical-Temporality that is manifest in the possession of one Entity by another. A leaf is a possession of a tree, not the other way around, as defined by the dominance of the tree as it is Being-in-the-World, as it is observed, as it anchors the leaf to the earth by its branch and trunk and roots. So the primary Subject of the World of Dasein is itself, the Entity of Self, whose inter-relations, both within the sensory and the Action halves, dominate all other Entities. Other Entities as Subject As mentioned, the Self Entity is certainly not the first Subject even though it does become the largest. Any Entity presented as a Potentiality-for-Being that exhibits dominance, either dominance through interrelations of Being-in-the-World or dominance through Temporality, can be a Subject. Examples of early Subjects of Being-in-the-World are one's parents or one's home. Early Subjects of Temporality may be Self-hunger as Subject (to breast feeding as Object), Self-locomotion and so on. The Perception of the Self Entity as Object The instance of Dasein, in its youth, builds the derivative Anticipatory Interpretations of the Potentialities-for-Being, and centres them around its Subject Entity of Self. Surrounding the Entity of Self, of particular dominance and importance compared to other Entities, are the They, typically the family of a biological instance of Dasein. In taking the Entity of Self as Subject, and one of the They as Object, Dasein, insofar as it is "understanding" at this point, "understands" that individual of the They only as a Thing, an object of the World, as it pertains to itself. But, slowly, in taking the They as Subject, in the manner described above, and itself as Object, as an Entity submitted to the dominance of the They (either through interrelations or Temporality), Dasein gradually constructs a new aspect to its Entity of Self, the Object Entity of Self. This new Entity is, to be sure, related and therefore interconnected with the Subject Entity of Self, but at the same time represents a functional divergence in the Being of Dasein. It allows Dasein, the more it is Interpreted as Object, to "see" itself - as the Object Entity of Self - as its Entity of the They "see" itself. To put it another way, Dasein has a model of it's father within itself as an Entity, and through the Object Entity of Self Dasein can "see" how its own model of its father "sees" itself, the implication being that this is how its father sees itself in Reality. The strength of the identification of the Subject Entity of Self and the Object Entity of Self is paramount in establishing the co-identity, as with any other relative definition of Entities. But, here a unique situation arises because of the Anticipation of the Self. When the Subject Entity of Self is Anticipated, this produces a Potentiality-for-Being of the Self that is commonly a Potentiality-for-Action that is subsequently Selected. When the Object Entity of Self is Anticipated, concomitant with the Subject Entity's Potentiality-for-Action, the Object Entity of Self will come to represent the "consequences" of that Potentiality-for-Action. This "perception" of the Self within the World, the degree to which Dasein can both submit itself as an Object to the World yet keep possession of the Object as an aspect of the Self, is the fundamental process of awareness. The Perception of other Entities as Object Dasein, having established itself as an Subject and Object Entity within-the-World, and as accessible in either mode-of-Being through Anticipation, extends the Being-of-the-Object-within-the-World to the res of the World. The manner in which it has access to itself as an Object-within-the-World, in "perceiving" how itself may be "viewed" by the They and the possible consequences of Potential Actions, becomes the mode-of-Being for all Objects-in-the-World. Thus, when a book or a tree is "observed" as an Object of the World it is "perceived" as a Thing-to-be-perceived, and thus the Being of the Thing is analogous to the (Object-)Being-of-the-Self. This is the phenomenon of perception of Dasein. Conclusion Dasein has first constructed Subject and Object Entities of the Self, and then used this mode of perceiving the Object to Interpret the "loss" of the Subject to the World, and so understand the distinction between observer and observed. ..... Summary
Created 10th April 2009 Revised 24th April 2009 |