Copyright © 2020

Avello Publishing Journal

ISSN: 2049 -498X

Issue 1 Volume 3:

Grammar, Language and Linguistics

Christopher Brock

Stony Brook University

The "I" Model

"There should be a single science ...to investigate being qua being."

Aristotle - The Metaphysics IV. 2 1003b 12

Nearly 2400 years later...

"We do not just lack a detailed theory; we are entirely in the dark about how consciousness fits into the natural order."

David Chalmers- The Conscious Mind pg. 3

Over the last few years, I have been interested in the mystery of consciousness.

Though I have read various discourse communities that span the epistemic spectrum, I

have failed to find an adequate explanation of it. I have come to find that psychology

has not developed a definitive theory to explain it. Mathematics can only be used to

formalize it. Classic physics brackets it out of their equations and quantum physics does

not clarify it. Neuroscience materializes it to brain activity and behaviorism reduces it to

outward behavior. Psychoanalysis depicts it as a mythological ego while literary

theorists contextualize it. Linguists prioritize language over it and evolutionary thinkers

negate it in favor of simplistic tautologies of adaptation and natural selection.

Phenomenology examined it but then abandoned it; while, existentialism considers it

absurd. Theologians teach it how to live gracefully but do not further their understanding

of human quiddity. All the while, a few contemporary philosophers resemble scientific

creative prose, as their meditations tend to reference it with ghosts-in-machines,

zombies, bats, and brains-in-vats. Global literature has a wealth of knowledge

concerning it; unfortunately, translated writings tend to hold little relevance in the

American zeitgeist.

Needless to say, I have found that consciousness is an elusive

phenomenon that lacks form in our intellectual economy. What discourse lacks is a

comprehensive theory that secures certain knowledge of first-person subjectivity. Obviously

sciences have contributed to understanding certain facets of the human mind, but they have

failed to provide a unified theory of consciousness that formalizes the field of first person

experience. The truths that we gain from discourse communities concerning consciousness

lacks sustenance as facts tend to be fragmented and disjointed. What is needed is a

comprehensive revision that better arranges the facts of consciousness in a unified logical

picture. To logically picture the operational functionality of consciousness would entail

securing certain knowledge of first-person subjectivity that could be utilized as if it were a tool

by discourse communities in their endeavors. Since the case remains that traditions lack a

theory that closes the explanatory gap of consciousness another way must be tried [Alia

tentanda do via est].

Consciousness is a property that we possess as humans; oddly enough, we lack an objective explanation of the saturated phenomenon. Think about it, we share a universal quality

that we cannot account for with current discourse. Although our species' wide cognitiveendowment is a difficult phenomenon to define, it seems practical to pursue a theory of

consciousness. A theory of consciousness seeks to meet the demands of third person

objectivity by explaining the operation, structure, and dynamics of the phenomenon of consciousness with a means that is comprehendible and accurate to the readership at large.

What I am trying to produce in this demonstration has been termed in similar pursuits

an ideality of consciousness, an Analogy of Being [analogia entis], a Simulacrum of Mind, and

a Fundamental Ontology. To develop a theory of consciousness is a common endeavor as it is

found in the Metaphysics of Aristotle, the haecceity of Duns Scotus, the Dasein of Martin

Heidegger, the First philosophy of Rene Descartes, the life philosophy [lebenphilosophie] of

Edmund Husserl, and by numerous other names by various other thinkers. Overall, three

themes tend to be repeatedly found in these frameworks. First, the individual is projected

toward objects and possibilities. Second, the individual is always facing their own death.

Third, each individual is thrown [geworfenheit] into a world not of their own making. From

these basic assumptions, we are given grounds to develop our understanding of consciousness

with the aspiration of gaining a logical picture of consciousness that grasps the multifaceted

complexity of being with lucid clarity.

The mission of this demonstration is to present an equation of human experience that

represents with verisimilitude the immensely complex weave of consciousness, body, and

environment [enaction] in a form that can be critically assessed by the reader for inter-

subjective validity. The grounding factor of the demonstration is based on the self-evident

realization that both the physical body and immaterial consciousness exist together with distinct

aspects that can be studied [aham-pratyaya]. The demonstration is concentrated on formalizing

an ideality of consciousness which outlines the operation of human cognitive functioning as

embodied in the flesh autonomously acting on the surrounding world. To depict consciousness

being-in-the-world, a strict methodological procedure will be set in place to permit a

momentarily cessation [nirodha] of our natural attitude in order to logically isolate the

phenomenon for adequate study. The work utilizes the current academic trends and scientific

paradigms playing part in consciousness studies but departs from these sources as needed in

order to cohere to evidence gained from a standpoint of radical empiricism [samsara], also

known as first person experience. The demonstration standardizes an explanation of

consciousness that will enable practitioners to more efficiently assess consciousness as a

common property equally endowed amongst all human individuals. This demonstration works

exclusively to elicit a fundamental ontology that charts the potentiality of embodied

consciousness in action with the world, by substituting the actual presence of consciousness

with a theoretical nexus that reflects the operative modalities [modus operandi] of its being-in

the-world. This form of fundamental ontology will supplement discourse communities by

therapeutically clarifying the conception of human subjectivity as related to human sciences

[Geisteswissenschaften], art, and knowledge [promo]; as well as, impact the manner in which

we comprehend our heritage, our immaterial likeness and our individual being.

The fundamental ontological project does not seek to grasp what it is like to be a particular

person as an endeavor seeking this type of subjective first person knowledge is prohibited and

impermissible [Hebrew: Assur] according to the objective standards of third person science.

This work clarifies the objective-subjective debate which has inhibited our ability to converse

on the subject of consciousness as the requirements for both sides are not established clearly. To

close the explanatory gap, this demonstration is set forth as a product of focused examination of

subjective [per accidens] consciousness in order to elicit the essential [per se] components that

play a part in the operation of consciousness. This demonstration will equip the reader with a

model that yields a stronger understanding of the human mind that can aid in discussions,

application, and practice . After all is said and done, the human mind will be rigidly designated

with a logical picture that theoretically frames our shared cognitive endowment with a means

that can be utilized when studying, teaching, and researching subjects that lack a legitimate

theory of consciousness.

Method

In order to theorize the operation of consciousness as a shared

cognitive endowment, we are forced to take a detached look upon our own contingent life style

and examine the phenomenon as it is. This methodological [upayabhyasa] pursuit focuses the

scope on being qua being, similar to the residuum left over from the reduction [reduktion]

performed by Husserlian phenomenology. Husserl believed that psychology could attain the

same academic stature as mathematics, if and only if, a formal method was applied that

bracketed out the contingencies that play part in each one of our natural attitudes. Husserl's

phenomenology made the paradigmatic claim that if "ideal objects of mathematics can be

studied so too can the essential nature of knowing acts" (Husserl, 123). To Husserl's credit, he

was able to elaborate a method that switched from autobiographical psychology to a scientific

perspective of consciousness.

Subjective Uiva], autobiographical or doxological forms of psychology tend to examine a

specific case of historical human experience by recapturing the essence of what it is like to be

a certain person. What it is like to be me, Abraham Lincoln, Barack Obama, or Mother Mary

are types of subjective psychology that examines the features, pathology, and characteristics of

a certain person. In opposition to this form of psychology, Husserl's methodological solipsism

is different because it analyzes consciousness with the goal being to generalize the properties

that all of us share as human beings.

The phenomenological reduction [epoche] allows each of us to

investigate the nature of consciousness [cidcitmaka] with an eidetic means that narrowly

examines our internal locus of causality playing part in the life-world [ lebenwelt] . The

reduction calls for a temporary cessation [nirodha] of consciousness which involves

suspending our natural attitude and bracketing out the contingent features of our being, in order

to properly examine the state-of-affairs that permits intelligence. By performing the reduction

we can logically investigate the deeper characteristics of our very own being-in-the-world and

compare that information to the characteristics that we can be reasonably adequate to others [

prama].1

For this demonstration, methodological solipsism sets a

departure point for investigation by justifying that the inquirer posses everything

necessary to evaluate human consciousness. The reduction is a theoretical maneuver set in

place to bracket out the contingencies of consciousness as experienced in our existential

narrative, with the aspiration of explaining consciousness with an objective rigor par

excellence. Husserl's research assistant Martin Heidegger summed up the project by

claiming that "we must make an entity- the inquirer- transparent to his or her very own

being" (238). This demonstration is the result of the reduction as it advances a

fundamental ontological structure that implicates our very being in the world.

The Conceptual Order

David Chalmers would call this project a cognitive model "whose theoretical mechanisms

perform the relevant functions of consciousness... with a demonstration that illustrates the causal

organization... of the human organism" (Chalmers, 47). In other words, the demonstration

attempts to construct a framework of consciousness that systematizes a set of principles by

ordering [syntaxis] each within a structural model that replicates the operation of human

consciousness in a abstract form. The project forces the scientist to turn the scope back upon

their own being to elicit the given truths of subjectivity and then articulate what is found in an

objective form that is relevant to the community. In this fashion, we are overlooking the narrative

understanding of subjective experience in favor of depicting consciousness as the operational

centre that enables subjective human experience. This demonstration carefully depicts the

human organism as a system containing a multiplicity of elements that constitute the functional

capacity of consciousness with out infringing upon human plasticity and freewill.

Utilizing a systems [systema] approach, we can view consciousness as a whole

composed of parts that are structurally and functionally consistent across diverse populations

and contextual situations. "The 'I' Model" is a theoretical system that illustrates consciousness

with-in a rotating system of causality by placing each component in a logical schematic that is

rigorous and conducive to the facts. The demonstration contains a set of 16 principle definitions

coupled with 16 visual diagrams that set the placement of each term in the model. This

procedure focuses the scope of explanation by organizing each principle into one of three

modalities of consciousness that contain five principles each. The "I" principle is considered the

founding principle, it stands alone, and will be examined first. There after the modality termed

the Pillars of the Process will be articulated that aids in cementing the structural integrity of the

model. The Pillars of the Process are then networked through five Connecting Principles that

form the exterior structure of the model and the second modality. After presenting the Pillars of

the Process and the Connecting Principles, the internal attributes of consciousness will be

established as a sort of Inner Wheel. "The 'I' Model" is presented below in finalized form to

acquaint the reader with the finished product of this demonstration. Think of it like the picture

on the front of a puzzle box, a glimpse of what we are working toward constructing.

Unity of Terminology:

This demonstration aims at providing a suitable foundation for broader discussion on

consciousness. In order to have a reasonable discussion on a topic, we must have a language

to signify the object we are discussing. Since traditions have failed to unify the terminology of

consciousness they lack the ability to coherently communicate across discourse. To enable

professionals to utilize a common vocabulary of consciousness, I have taken the liberty to

unify the principle terminology of the model. Spanning the written record, ambiguity in

language is a common problem encountered in theoretical frameworks that attempt to frame

consciousness. Many theorists rely upon words that when scrutinized and represented

concepts that can be broken down further or resemble notions in different discourses that have

remained impossible to reconcile. Unfortunately, the conundrum of consciousness has become

so difficult to unravel that most discourses methodologically negate consciousness from the

equation and remain silent about the state-of affairs. No doubt the shear abundance and

possible combinations of language combined with the authors' preferred word choice

contributes to the fragmentation of consciousness studies. This confusion can be avoided if we

set limits upon the language of consciousness. To avoid the fragmentation problems of the

past I will develop a technical vocabulary for the model. The principle terminology of the

model is derived from the set of terms that begin with the letter "I". This approach will serve a

few purposes for this demonstration. First, using only "I" terms will make the word chosen the

most distinct definition in a much smaller set of English language. Second, in order to

understand consciousness we must place the primacy on the individual person. Third, limiting

the vocabulary of model avoids traditional arguments brought about by the difference of word

choice. Fourth, the process allows us to bring about an entirely new depiction of

consciousness without strict allegiances to previous schools of thought. Fifth, the

demonstration derives the title "The 'I' Model" because it contains 16 principles that begin

with the letter "I". All in all, this method allows us to represent a consistent field

of explanation concerning consciousness in action with the world.

Diagrams

I have found that by developing a conceptual map of the

phenomenon of consciousness, we can better organize and understand the operation of the

immaterial phenomenon. Therefore, the written portion of demonstration is coupled with

pictorial diagrams that aid in formalizing a theory of consciousness participating with the

world. The diagrams organize the conceptual flow of consciousness by placing each principle

with-in a consistent theoretical framework. The diagrams can be viewed as a topology of the

subject in which principles are given a specific placement that coheres to their very definition. I

have come to find that this procedure strengthens our grasp on the notion consciousness. The

16 principles are provided below listed according to their modality and paired with the diagram

that charts the placement of each in "The 'I' Model."

The 'I' Model:

The articulation of the demonstration will proceed in this order.The "I".

The Pillars of the Process:

I ntentionality Inclusion Infusion Implementation

The Connecting Principles:

Improvement

Initiative Interaction Integration

The Inner Wheel:

1. Instinct 2. Interpretation 3. Identification4. Innovation 5. Interest 6. Introspection

7. Imagination

How can we begin the reduction? As Husserl would say we need to appeal to the thing in itself

as it appears to us as a legitimizing source of discourse. Or in plainer English, we need to

examine our own being to elicit the essential aspects and necessary functions of our being and

abstract that information in a theoretical form. In doing this we are not given a defined area in

which to begin but rather a mission to accomplish.

Historically, thinkers including Husserl, Descartes, Berkeley, and Spinoza have

negated the presence of the body, the incarnate flesh [propria persona], our touch on the

world, favouring to view consciousness as a self-sustaining entity in and of it self. In fact, the

most widely known quote in all western philosophy is probably Rene Descartes' "Cogito

ergo sum" translated as either "I think, I exist" or "I think therefore I am." This declarative

notion is an existence claim that has wrecked havoc to modern psychology. Descartes

proclamation is an accurate existence claim yet the route in which he justified his thesis is

inconsistent. Descartes rightly viewed consciousness as a self-evident phenomenon that is

the first truth to be understood by any individual. However, Descartes' error was founded

upon his ability to imagine himself detached from his material being. This demarcation

caused Descartes to doubt the relationship between mind and body which ultimately lead

him to deny any possible knowledge of other individuals. Descartes' form of Idealism

theoretically trapped him in a conundrum that has plagued the Western Canon's

understanding of human consciousness for the last four centuries. Any idealist thinker with a

mind-body problem is under the illusion that science can study the functioning of human

consciousness without taking into account the localization in human flesh. Obviously, human

cognition is always attached to the material of the human body and thus, we will begin by

examining the physical body. Plain and simple, if we negate the human body, we annihilate

[aneantistant] human consciousness. We simply cannot explain consciousness in terms of

human nature if we detach mind from body. In fact, when consciousness is considered

demarcated from the body, we are no longer examining the ontology of the human situated in

a worldly state-of-affairs but instead an ontological being such as the soul which exceeds the

scope of modern science. For the purpose of this demonstration I will temporarily suspend

speculation that results with a conclusion that misses the point [ignoratio elenchi] of this

endeavor. Moving forward we can focus on investigating the property of being a conscious

individual living towards death [Sein-zum-Tode], and bracket out the investigation of how it

came to be that humans have existence and what is to come for the individual when they are

no longer living.

So what is material being? To answer this question, we can solicit a whole

gamut of truth by turning to modern biological and physical sciences. Empirical sciences

conform to a narrow materialist perspective that yields relevant facts that must be accounted for

in any valid ontological framework of the individual human being. For instance, we can study

the neurological correlates of perception by tracing the activity of the brain with an fMRI

machine (developed at my Alma Mater the State University of New York at Stony Brook), we

can trace the chemical reactions that go on with-in the body using highly reliable means, we can

express human gene structure by

deciphering deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and we can observe behavioural responses of

individuals to stimulus in the environment.Unfortunately, we cannot rely completely on the modern materialist paradigms as several

phenomena transcend scientific instrumentation

The "I":

"Je suis man corps." - "I am my body."-- Maurice Merleau Ponty.

The most evident fact of consciousness is that the world is revealed to each of us through our

bodily apparatus [leibhaftig]. I [asmat] exist as an individual [individuum] that is self-

sufficient [autarky] for my own volition [aseity]. The incarnate flesh [la chair du monde]

depicted by the center "I", represents the individual as an animate solitary being thrown into

the human condition with the ability to make intelligent exchanges with the environment

[Umwelt]. The " I" principle represents the biological body [sarira] which determines gender,

age, health, kinesthetic abilities, and genetic ties to the origination [utpada] of our species.

The "I" [ahampratyaya] sets the localization point for our orientation in space-time and

signifies a solitary frame-of-reference. Therefore, the "I" represents the concrete expression of

human existence [bhava] and deals with the description of the role of the body in the works of

subjectivity.

The "I" is always functioning during the temporal duration of human cognition and is

placed in strict opposition to the inert lifeless corpse [ korper ]. The " I" specifies ownership and

is brought about by the event of being born, woven into the fabric of the world [/'intermonde],

unto death. "I" represents the singular nature of the human individual existing on its own

[autochthonous], thrown into a world of objects and dispersed amongst others [Mitsein] like thy

self.

To methodologically reduce the "I", we can refer to what Deleuze and

Guattari espoused as a body without organs [BwO]. A BwO sets the limit for understanding the

virtual dimensions and potentialities of the flesh by not focusing on the exact organization of the

anatomical body. Deleuze and Guttari decided to bracket out the characteristic features of the

biological body such as arms, eyes, or the circulatory system, in order to focus on the immanent

freedom and flowing nature of the individual in the world. For our purpose, the "I" is a virtual

stand in for the actuality of possessing a body and is a notion that does not discriminate against

anyone's personal bodily attributes. Therefore, the "I" is an androgynous concept that allows us

to acknowledge the fact of the flesh [basar, besarium]. In essence the "I" is a self-evident

postulate that professionals can use to make the body theoretically transparent until application

in real world situations.

In the diagram above "I" is located in the center of the model placed in equal proximity to each

Pillar of the Process, Connecting Principle, and Inner Wheel principle. This diagram represents

the

necessity of the material body as it plays part in the duration and functioning of human

consciousness.

To recap, the centre "I" acknowledges our material being thrown into a situated world that sets

the background conditions for our exist ence. The "I" localizes each of us with a biological body

that sets the necessary and sufficient conditions to produce an original sphere of experience

[Originarsphar]. The mind-body relationship is the founding point of our basic existence on this

world and the natural starting point for this investigation.

As the materialist can not doubt away their own mind, the idealist can not excuse their

self from reality; we can not analyze the anatomy, behavior, and biological constitution of the

material body and expect to understand all that there is to know about our subjective being.

Traditions that bracket consciousness out of their equations are fashionable in the paradigms

of today. However, it is acknowledged that these traditions fail to grasp the entire field of

relationships that play part in the

operation, functionality, and dynamics of an individual acting in the environment.

Since science cannot measure the metaphysical phenomenon of human

consciousness, we must rely upon our own ability to develop a heuristic that therapeutically

outlines our knowledge of consciousness. We must naturalize the relationship between the

materialist and idealistic tradition in order to logically investigate consciousness with a means

that coheres to the facts of scientific knowledge and the self-evidence of first-person of

experience. What I attempt to set forth from this point is a perspective that facilitates an

explanation of consciousness based upon the founding constitution of the human body. It is

important to point out this demonstration does not explain the binding of mind to body nor does

it answer why there is being as opposed to nothingness; these questions can only be answered

with faith and are beyond the reasonable scope of this demonstration. These questions are

bracketed out of this demonstration because they do not prevent the elaboration of human

consciousness. From this point forward, the "I" Model will be elucidated in a clockwise fashion

starting with the modality [modus operandi] of the Pillars of the Process, moving then to the

modality of Connecting Principles, and finishing with the modality of the Inner Wheel. It should

be noted that each principle is placed according to modality and is set in equal proximity to the

'I' to bring about an aesthetic consistency of the model. Below is the route of articulation for

the first modality.

The Pillars of the Process:

l.lntentionality 2.lnclusion 3.lnfusion 4.Implementation

5.lmprovement

Intentionality:

In our case, consciousness is a unique phenomenon that sets

the foundation for subjectivity, the capacity for first-person experience, and human

hermeneutical attunement to the world [Adoni].

Consciousness is evident from our living awareness of being-here [Dasein] at this

moment, with traces from the past surrounding us and a horizon of future possibilities

confronting us. Due to the method set in place consciousness can be transformed into a

heuristic model that expresses the transcendental field of intentional action. At this point, we

need to change from the use of the ambiguous notion of consciousness and move toward

understanding human intentionality [prayojana].

By focusing our attention toward the operative capacity of intentionality, we are able to

logically investigate the actual facticity of consciousness. Intentionality covers a vast spectrum of

relations that can be clarified by reducing human subjectivity to the primitive structures that

governs thought. The nature of intentionality is set in synchronic accordance to the outward

criteria of bodily experience.

Since we have already accounted for the material presence ('I'), we can

investigate the composition of intentionality. If we assume that intentionality marks the initial

demarcation point between the dimensionality of the physical body ('I') and the immaterial

manifold of mind, we can begin the process of unraveling the difficult problematic of being

qua being. By joining the material body with Intentionality, the diagram above represents

consciousness and body as dual-aspects of the same being.

By pursuing the dual-aspect perspective, the question is transformed from: How is

the body related to the mind to how is the mind-body as a functioning monad related to the

world?

Intentionality is the immaterial characteristic of the flesh found evident by

phenomenological reduction. Though intentionality was legitimized by Husserl's pioneering

logic, it was his former professor Franz Brentano in his magnum opus Psychology from an

Empirical Standpoint that brought intentionality onto the modern scene. Brentano claimed that:

"[E]very mental phenomenon is characterized by what Scholastics of the Middle Ages [specifically, St. Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus, and William of Ockham] called intentional...what we might call, reference to content, direction toward an object, or immanent objectivity."

The term intentionality in that context was not discovered by Medieval thinkers either,

but instead was used by Aristotle, Plato, and the pre-Socratics from the obvious Latin root

word intendo which is translated as 'to point at'- 'to aim at'- 'to extend toward' an object. I do

not find it necessary for the purpose of this demonstration to trace the origin of the notion of

intentionality, as further investigation would result in an infinite regress and a reduction to the

absurd [reductio ad absurdum].

At the turn of the second millennium, intentionality is considered a technical term meaning

aboutness and encompasses the totality of mental states, properties, actions, and events that

compose consciousness. Though many thinkers are reluctant to admit it, intentionality does

permit conversation on future goals and human objectives. For this demonstration, I want to

refine the notion of consciousness by bringing to light the necessary conditions that constitute

human intentionality. By definition intentionality is directed toward an object and thus sets the

ground for the second Pillar of the Process. The next principle describes the essential nature of

our intentionality-being-in-the-world, by setting the "I" in an intentional relation to objects. To

move on to the next Pillar of the Process, we will make a brief detour into a demarcation that

Franz Brentano established between types of object s.

Inclusion : "The common feature of everything psychological, often referred to, unfortunately, by

the misleading term "consciousness", consists in a relation that we bear to an object. The

relation has been called 'intentional'; it is a relation to something which may not actually exist but which is presented as an object."

The Origin of Our Knowledge of Right and Wrong Franz Brentano 1889.

The entire principle of intentionality is constituted on the unique ability to include

objects. Consciousness has the ability to be about anything whether it is a real object at hand,

items in the surrounding environment, other individuals, inexistent objects, or simply abstract

ideas such as aesthetics, beauty, love, morality, god, or any other topic for that matter.

Brentano irreducibility thesis established that intentionality is the ability of consciousness to

be about real objects that exist outside the body and ideal objects such as awareness, ideas,

pains, and emotions that have existence only in the phenomenal flesh.

The second Pillar of the Process is Inclusion which naturally falls in line with intentionality.

Inclusion sets the grounds for worldhood [weltlichkeit] by localizing the "I" amongst objects and

providing grounds for the individual's absorption [Samadhi] into the environment. By applying

the reduction, we are able to bracket out the contingencies of all objects [visaya] included by

making them referentially opaque, whether real or inexistent. This method allows us to focus

only on consciousness's capacity to realize an object [arthakriya-sakti]. Making the object

transparent enables us to picture an architectonic of the mind stripped of all empirical content

and provides essential knowledge of invariant structures at work in consciousness irrespective of

what goes on in the actual world or what particular object the intentional agent is about. The

inclusion principle allows us to examine the initial conditions

of the individual's environment which encompasses the setting, location, timeframe, social

milieu, historical events, and situational factors in which the "I" plays part. We include in our

being everything that we confront, think about, or ever are to know.

Inclusion allows the "I" to interact with the world and experience objects in a much

different manner than non-intentional entities. In some cases, we are included into systems that

are beyond our own control such as earth is the carrier domain for our being that provides the

necessary and sufficient conditions for human existence. Overall, inclusion accounts for all the

possible objects that are naturally disbursed amongst the intentional human agent. Obviously,

Inclusion represents an infinite multiplicity of possible relational objects that we must work to

breakdown further. As can be seen above, Inclusion is placed in successive order to

intentionality and is intimately tied to the material "I".

Infusion:

So far we have established that the material "I" has a property of intentionality which permits the

inclusion of objects. Obviously, the "I" can not possibly include all things at once [ad infintium].

Built into the constitution of intentionality is a mechanism of infusion that sets the necessary

conditions for the freedom of choice which governs our ability to attach to certain objects. The

Infusion process can be defined as the specific attention to, the natural selection of, and the

communion with objects included by the "I". Infusion allows us to filter objects of inclusion and

attend to only certain objects of our choosing. In a very real sense, infusion enables us to

transform and be transformed by the horizons of others. We can choose which books to read,

which groups to join, which foods to consume, which career to work, which products to

purchase, which hobbies to participate, which beliefs to follow, which institutions to be part of,

which friends to have, so on and so on.

Having the freedom to choose is pivotal for human consciousness. We can actively infuse

our consciousness with any object included. In this way, we have the unique ability to filter out

objects from the environment. The infusion process limits the manner in which are body begins

to consume resources from the natural environment. The Infusion process also opens up a

discourse on the ethical field of relations with others. When infusing with another individual a

special bonding is formed that creates the ethical field. Martin Buber claimed that "all real living

is meeting the other" (Buber, 46). Buber's ethics claimed that there is an "I" that is myself and a

"Thou" that has a familiar "I" resemblance. According to Emmanuel Levinas ethics is based upon

the expressions of the face-to-face relationship or in our terms "I" to "I" pairings. Ethical

relationships have been widely written about and lay grounds for stern debate. A few prominent

writers that attempted to tackle the ethical field of relationships. Immanuel Kant attempted to

outline an absolute grounding for morals that is based upon the categorical imperative; Friedrich

Nietzsche attempted to trace the roots of moral action throughout history; Hegel categorized the

"I" to "I" relationship as a power struggle called the Master-Slave dialectic; Machiavelli nullified

ethical relationships in favor of preserving the nation-state; and Aristotle, Plato, as well as, the

Pre-Socratics advanced treatises concerning the ethical treatment of others and the golden rule.

The case remains that the most influential discussion of morality in the West is the critique of all

values set forth by the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Christ's message concerned the ethical duty to prefer the others' welfare over one' s own.

However, since this demonstration is based upon developing a descriptive psychology of the

progression of intentionality and not the ethical t reatment, charity, and hospitality that we should

show one another, the discussion on ethics and morality will be suspended for this

demonstration. In other words, this demonstration does not deal with how we should treat one

another but rather what operational capacity allows us to have ethics.

To recap, "I" ruptures the non-living world with the feature of intentionality derived

from the lived body. lntentionality actively includes all objects before the mind. Since

consciousness is unable to be about all objects at once, it filters the landscape of material,

immaterial, and inexistent objects to bind with what so ever it chooses in a process called

infusion. By attentively selecting a certain object, we can move to the fourth Pillar in the

Process.

Implementation:

Implementation is the production of an action with an infused object that has

affectivity [arthakriyo]. Implementation is the step necessary in order to achieve a goal.

Implementation covers everything from complex practices [prakitikos] of artisan work

[avodat] and performing everyday organized actions, to responding to stimuli in the

environment and facilitating the basic biological functions necessary for preservation.

For instance, if a student chooses to attend college, they must select a university,

attend class, pay the tuition rate, study the required topics, declare a major, and perform other

duties necessary to receive a degree. Simply by choosing to attend college, the student must

implement actions necessary to fulfill the requirements posed by the colle ge. The example of

a student is very multifaceted and calls for implementation to cover an array of actions over

period of time. However , in the context of the "I" Model, implementation covers even the

smallest actions. For instance, if we thirst we must choose a liquid (infusion}, whether it be

water, soda, or wine makes no difference, as implementation is only concerned with the

actions of obtaining the beverage and consuming it. In the diagram above, implementation is

charted as the fourth Pillar of the Process.

Before we move to the final Pillar of the Process, let's recap once

more. "I" represents the material flesh that is inextricably linked to human

consciousness. Consciousness allows us to have an

intentional relation that permits the inclusion of objects which in turn grants us the

ability to choose objects to infuse with. After infusing with an object, the "I" is called to

implement actions that fall in accordance with the object. When the implemented action is

successful, we can move to the fifth Pillar of the Process, improvement.

Improvement:

The "I" has the obvious ability to strive over the environment by

implementing action to reach an improved state. Improvement is an inherent phenomenon of

being that drives it to become. This leads to conclusion that human consciousness has a

teleological [entelecheia], self preserving, and goal oriented property that functions to preserve

the individual being. This teleological aspect motivates each of us to continually keep pace and

strive with-in the changing flux of the world. This goal orientation motivates us to improve upon

our situation, achieve balance, reach homeostasis, pursue wealth, and obtain a life of graceful

bliss [ananda]. This improvement motivated aspect of our being allows us to add value, benefit,

comfort, peace, and happiness [eudaimonia] to our life [asrama]. The principle of improvement

has been accounted for across many discourse communities. For instance, the psychoanalysts

developed the notion of improvement with their pleasure principle [lustprinzip], the Gestalt

school's Law of Pragnanz accounted for improvement by investigating the regulatory capacity in

which people tend toward achieving person objectives, and the feminist critique elaborated on

the concept jouissance, which is a specific type of improvement brought about by the varieties a

female experience such as mot herhood. Even the notions of Charles Darwin's survival of the

fittest and Friedrich Nietzsche's Overman [Ubermensch] give credence to the importance of

improvement by focusing on self-preservation, self-mastery, and self-sufficiency. The

Improvement principle can be considered a form of intentional trajectory oriented in time

projecting toward what the "I" is to become in the future.

For an example of our improvement motivated nature we can again turn to the student

that chose to implement all the necessary requirements to earn a college degree. The student

improved her situation by infusing with and implementing actions in accordance to the

college to earn a degree, receive an education, become a graduate, and achieve personal

objectives. Improvement finalizes the Pillars of the Process by stating that consciousness is

necessarily teleological in nature and always striving to become better, more efficient, and

different from what the individual was at a prior moment.

The diagram below represents the "I" in relation to the modalities of the Pillars of

Process.

"I" and the Pillars of the Process:

The Pillars of the Process represent a basic framework for understanding the individual.

The concepts of Intentionality, Inclusion, Infusion, Implementation and Improvement are the

founding principles of the Pillars of the Process and set forth a theoretical matrix for explaining

intentional action. Again, the Pillars of the Process surround the center "I" in exact proximity to

illustrate the necessary entanglement of flesh in the operation of human consciousness.

Obviously the 'I' Model is not complete as we have two more modalities to account

for. We will find that the remaining modalities scaffold from the Pillars of Process. In many

ways the Pillars of the Process secure the theoretical integrity of the 'I' Model. Since these

principles are placed in accordance to the pre-established layout of the Pillars of the Process,

we will come to find slight repetition in the next two steps of elucidation.

The Pillars of the Process and the 'I' are illustrated above. We have developed the Pillars

of the Process and their intrinsic links to the "I" but lack an explanation of the space separating

one Pillar of the Process to the Pillar of the Process ie. Intention-to-Inclusion or implementation-

to-improvement. We can now move forward to produce an in-depth understanding of intentional

action based upon the integrity of the Pillars of the Process and the "I".

The Connecting Principles:

1.1ntiative 2. Interaction 3. Integration 4. Innovation 5. Introspection

As can be seen the Connecting Principles bridge the gaps between each

Pillar of the Process. This portion of the demonstration focuses on affirming a genuine

connection between each of the pillars. By focusing the discussion on the relationships between

each principle from the Pillars of the Process, a distinct connecting modality is fashioned that

illustrates the exterior of "The 'I' Model".

What will be formed is a frame that sets the boundaries between the public and private by articulating the border between the inside and the outside. The Connecting Principles examine

the relationships between: Intentionality and Inclusion, Inclusion and Infusion, Infusion and

Implementation,

Implementation and Improvement, and Improvement and Intentionality . In this part of the

demonstration we will again move from Pillar to Pillar in a clockwise rotation and each principle

will be termed with a principle that begins with the letter "I".

Initiative:

lnitium ut essest homo creates

est.

[that a beginning be made, man was created]

St . Augustine de civitate dei bk 12 ch 20

How is Intentionality linked to Inclusion? The ability for human intentionality to include objects

necessarily implies an initial spontaneous action

[assiyah] termed Initiative. Initiative is the

moment that "I" transforms from potential energy [sakti] to kinetic [kinesis] motion. To have

Intentionality the individual must be able to take Initiative to Include objects [ius ad bellum ] .

Our ability to be autonomous, to undertake something on our own relies on the very essence of

life, which is taking Initiative [motu proprio]. Hannah Arendt dealt with this form of action

developing the term natality. Natality is defined as the distinctive capacity of human action to

initiate, to start, and to create new beginnings. For Arendt being born binds us to the world and

at the same time creates our opportunities to take preemptive action. The concept of Initiative is

found in Greek philosophy under the term archein which is to begin or initiate action [the Greek

term archein is made more vivid by thinking of an archer aiming at a t arget ]. The letters of St

Paul and the confessions of St Augustine were among the first to articulate the ability of humans

to radically initiate new beginnings in adult life. Martin Heidegger's conception of initiative

blanketed the sheer contingency of human beings who find themselves inserted into a world not

of their own making and who must carry the burden of freely remaking themselves over and

over again. Initiative is measured by the duration of life shadowed by death; the very moment

we are divorced from human life, we are void of initiative. Initiative binds intentionality to

inclusion and "I" to the world . By simply being the introductory step necessary to act on our

own accord encompasses the transformation from inertness [tamas] to intentional action.

Interaction:

Moving to the second Connecting Principle, we must examine the link between Inclusion and In

fusion. What is the uniting principle between inclusion and infusion? The answer is the

connecting principle termed Interaction and accounts for the influential relationship of the "I"

with one or more objects on a prima facie level. In a sense only by interaction with objects, can

we link inclusion with infusion and "I" to the world. The diagram above illustrates Interaction as

the pivotal link between Inclusion and Infusion and the grounding factor of empirical

relationships.

What can be noted about the first four Connecting Principles is that they are

manifested in a scientifically testable third person observable form. We can reliably observe

individuals taking the initiative to interact with the environment, we can label the physical

objects that they include and decipher what the individual has chosen to infuse with. In fact,

these types of observations are the very foundation for behaviorism. The behaviorist does not

use the terms inclusion, infusion, or implementation but instead develops the notions of

stimulus, attention, and work. Even the improvement principle is factored in to behaviorism by

outlining the notions of rewards and punishments. What the behaviorist found to be vital to

scientific psychology is not the intentional act, but the responsive behavior that results from

stimuli. In their case the stimuli that the subject includes and infuses with causes a measurable

behavioral response. As can be seen, the "I" Model will fall in accordance to the behaviorist

paradigm by explicating the structures that found the stimulus response [SR] model and then

extrapolate the components that are left out by the behaviorist paradigm.

Physics has accounted for four fundamental forces- gravitational, electromagnetic,

strong, and weak- that act to describe the relationships between elementary particles, in this

same manner psychology must take into consideration the forces and influences encountered

when interacting with the world. However, to continue the reduction the actual influences

and forms of interactions will be bracketed out for this demonstration.

26

Integration:

We can now move onto the third connecting principle that charts the relationship between

Infusion and Im plementation. At this point in "the 'I' M odel" the individual has already

interacted with the world and infused with an object. The next step is then integration.

Integration represents the individual's conformity with the chosen object. During this process

the chosen object sets the horizon of potentialities and possible action for the individual. For

instance, the integration with society [varna] immerses the individual in a life-world that

regulates the laws of conduct [brahma charya] and socializes the individual with the community.

Obviously, the principle of integration encompasses the resources and potentialities of the

infused object but also the burdens and labors in which the object sets in place.

Returning to the example of the college student, if she has already chosen a school to

attend, she must register for classes and decide to live on campus, commute, or take classes

on-line, get her photo ID, purchase books, and perform other tasks that grant her access to the

college community. In the process of integration with the college, she limits her freedom by

abiding by the institution' s rules, requirements, norms and rituals. If she is to earn a degree,

she must submit to the domination of power brought forth by integrating with college and

implementing the actions in which the institution sets in place.

Historians focus on integration as a chronologically constituted

sedimentation of object relations that have shaped the social construction of marginalized

groups and individuals. Sedimentation is found in the continually laying down of layers that

order hierarchical system of stratification. Historians, such as Micheal Foucault and Louis

Althusser, have repeatedly claimed that ideological state apparatuses constitute the cultural

system which sustains society by setting in place modes of production in which people

conceive and perform possible actions. The education system is a type of ideological state

apparatus that prescribes roles and expectations for action in community activity. Other types

of ideological state apparatuses that hold tremendous influence over the individual are found in

the policing and punishment systems, the medical and pharmaceutical corporations, the

institutions comprising the social and cultural systems that form popular culture, the hegemonic

investment firms that gamble with the economics of natural resources, big business and bio-

power. All these ideological state apparatuses are governed by public leaders, political officials,

and interest groups that play part in the functioning of the public domain according to the

constitutional structure established by the founders of the nation, state, city, community, tribe,

or any other form of integrated civilized community. These institutions define the individual

statistically categorized according to classes, stereotypes, modes of production, social status,

and other forms of differentiation. Institutional systems such as the military-industrial

complexes, the law systems, religious sects and the academies have one prevailing purpose, to

homogenize populations by conditioning the individual to produce action in accordance with

their established standards, to meet certain rites of passage, and cooperate with other rules set

forth by their system. These societal demands have been termed memes and are defined as self-

replicating unit of cultural meaning transmitted amongst individuals. Individuals that fail to

accept the commitments of the institution tend to become demarcated, separated, and

disassociated from that group. As an individual that coheres to the norms tends to be embraced

by the infused institution, those individuals that fall outside the group are sometimes

stigmatized, made scapegoat, deviant, and object of prejudice. Therefore, i,t is recommended

that all individuals examine institutions under a lens of suspension in order to better understand

the mechanisms and objectives of the groups and belief systems in which they are and are not

affiliated. Ideological state apparatuses are the macrocosm of power and the basis for

communalization [vergernein schaftigung]. If we examine the microcosm of integration, we

can research the sociology of power relations in our everyday life formed by our family and

friends. In a very real sense, others establish an individual's outlook on the world as they

prescribe roles, assign identities, disseminate information, and diffuse technologies for the

person.

Choosing objects to infuse with such as hobbies in which we partake, the

games in which we play, the job in which we labor, even the tools in which we use influence us

to conform by setting in place rules, regulations and other normative factors that to participate

we must abide. As pointed out by Martin Heidegger and the post-phenomenologist Don Ihde,

the relationship of technologies must be accounted for when examining Integration with the

individual. Heidegger's conception of tool-being presents a strong discussion of the integration

with tools, as it claims that even to use a hammer the "I" must infuse with the technology,

integrate with its features, and then implement actions in accordance with the pairing. What the

philosophy of technology has revealed is that the technologies at hand shape the way in which

we can manipulate the world. Once again, to remain focused on the demonstration investigating

the actual forms of integration will be suspended. No matter the case, we need to view

Integration as the event that sets in place new avenues for resources, action, and production in

exchange for altering our human freedom. The diagram above represents the third Connecting

Principle Integration.

Innovation:

Magister artis ingenlique largitor venter.

[Necessity is the mother of invention]

The next step on the agenda is to focus on the relation between Implementation and

Improvement. Already established in the Pillars of the Process, implementation concerns the

action performed, whereas improvement signifies an achievement, a completion of a goal, a

success, or discovery brought into the world with the unique signature of humanness.

Innovation is the product of the actions performed (implementation) and comes prior to the

improvement. Everett Rogers claims that the key to linking action to success is innovation.

Rogers writes:

"An innovation is an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption. It matters little, so far as human behavior is concerned, whether or not an innovation is 'objectively' new as measured by the lapse of time since its first use or discovery. The perceived newness of the innovation determines his or her reaction to it. If the idea seems new to the individual, it is an innovation. (11)"

Innovation is the result of implementation [karmaphala] and denotes the origination

of a new invention, the creation [poiesis] of a novel object, the development of a new idea,

and the completing of duties. Innovation can be a form of labor to maintain commitments,

livelihood, family, in-groups, and institutions in which we are integrated . Innovation covers

the consumption of goods and services that result in improving the standpoint of the

individual. Innovation is the fulfillment of an objective, goal, or desire that leads to a

beneficial result. Human innovation encompasses our bodily expenditures which cover

everything from the control of biological actions such as breathing, eating, and speaking with

others and expands to cover the greatest achievements of creativity, art, spirituality and

science. All in all, innovation is the product gained by implementing a procedure.

There are instances that the innovations are not met, they fail to yield the

desired improvement,

or they come about in a manner not according to the intentional path. If the founding intention

of the individual, such as to reach a goal, falls short the plasticity of the individual to learn from

experience is still considered to be a form of innovation and imp rovement . The diagram above

represents Innovation the fourth Connecting Principle that unites implementation with

improvement.

Instinct:

Examining the "I" Model, the first empty space represents the internal attribute that is

derivative of the "I", intentionality, initiative, and inclusion principles. What is needed to

ground the materiality of the flesh to act intentionally in the world is a notion commonly

termed Instinct and credited to the discovery of Sigmund Freud, found prevalent in the

works of Friedrich Nietzsche and Arthur Schopenhauer amongst many others. The first

attribute of the inner wheel is Instinct defined by Lawrence Kubie in his psychiatric work

"Instincts and Homeostasis" as:

"the demands which the body makes on the mental apparatus" (318).

Instinct is a human biological function that channels bodily energy [energia] to take operation

and spurn our initiative in the world. Without energy the individual is unable to take autonomous

action in the world. Needless to say energy must always accompany each of us throughout life

and the cycles of Intentional action. If energy dissipates, we halt initiative, become inert,

motionless, and without the means for intentional action. However, since instinctual energy is

channeled kinetically and bounded by the potentiality of the flesh, it remains a subconscious

phenomenon that is automatically performed and constitutes the necessary and sufficient

conditions for human life.

The psychoanalytic thinker Jacques Lacan claimed that we can understand subconscious drives

of Instinct, by picturing it as if it were a language of the body. This instinctual language makes

demands upon the body to act for certain ends, gratification, needs and outcomes. If our "I" calls

for nourishment, to extinguish pain, to fulfill sexual arousal, or to gratify basic needs, the basic

instinctual force manifests an impulse that forces intention to take initiative to include an object.

Freud claimed that the instincts possess impetus which is a quasi-measurable force which charts

the biological demands of the body to begin action in the world. Instinct represents the sudden

spark of energy that puts the body into locomotion. Instincts form Impulsive intentionality that

can be as simple as triggering a reflex by sending information from the nerve or as complex as

demands set forth to meet basic human needs such as procreation, stratification and preservation.

In the diagram above, the first empty space is filled with colour to illustrate the principle of

Instinct and the first attribute of the Inner Wheel. From here forward, we will work on building a

symmetric relationship between the Inner Wheel and the Connecting Principles.

32

On the other hand, the philosopher John Locke realized the importance

that identification plays concerning experience with objects. Locke developed the notion of

Blank slate [tabula rasa] by claiming that the individual is thrown into the world without

content waiting to be marked with empirical data. Using Locke's analogy, identification starts

off void of empirical content awaiting experience to contaminate the space with meaning.

Identification also plays an important role in the psychology of Erik Erikson as he claimed

that:

"Identification provides the ability to experience one's self as something that has continuity and sameness, and to act accordingly." (Childhood and Society 1950)

Erikson developed the notion that the individual may have a difficulty, in his terms a crisis, in

coordinating their own personal identity, with the roles required by that of society, institutions,

or other systems of integration. Erikson's research examined individuals that have difficulty in

the social identification.

Erikson claimed that:"The identity crisis...occurs in that period of the life cycle when each youth must forge for his or her self some central perspective and direction, some working unity, out of the effective remnants of his childhood and the hopes of his anticipated adulthood." Erik Erikson Young Martin Luther (1958)

Erikson's model of psycho-social development points out the identity and role

confusions brought about by the expectations that the integrated system sets in place. Again,

we will not examine types of identity roles and bracket out this field of study for the time

being. The diagram above represents the placement of identification in the conceptual

scheme.

Interest:

Sua cuique voluptas, trahit sua quem que voluptas

[everyone has their own pleasures, each person's pleasure lures them]

The next Inner Wheel attribute is termed Interest and accounts for major differences

between individuals by setting grounds for personal taste [proairesis] and habit [habitas].

Interest is an attribute that follows identification and is directly surrounded by implementation,

innovation, and improvement. Interest is the ability to add preference, pleasure [sukha],

allegiance, empathy, desire [iccha], caring, and love to consciousness, as well as, on the same

note is the attribute of bias, prejudice, lust, one-upmanship, sin, carelessness, and hate. Interest

covers the space of consciousness that derives habit forming sets of innovative action.

Individuals will continually implement actions that hold value and interests to the individual.

Benedict Spinoza's form of innovation was termed conatus essendi which is defined as the sort

of survival and self-preservation preferences brought forth by the desires of the individual.

The35

Bibliography

Brentano, F. (1874) Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint Routledge.

Brentano, F. (1889) The Origin of Our Knowledge of Right and Wrong Routledge.