What is is what has not gone before.
Every object, animate or inanimate, is a generation. Generation is not replication, but replication fits into generation. Replication requires that the elements necessary to the construction of a new-identical are present, and that there is a degree of causation attributable to the original object. But this new-identical is totally different to the original object; whereas generation is the occurrence of any object, whether it exhibits qualities which are similar to a predetermined plan or is phenomenally original itself. This is true even of digital information, as this requires a physical state and system through which it can be computed. Productions lines do not create one object; they create a series of near-similar objects.
If the initial premise is true, and without resorting to anything other than empirical data, to prove it true (which, through generalised abstraction (itself a generation of new conditional objects) in the paragraph above, I do), I would like to discuss the implications for consciousness, as an evolutionary trait and the concerns of many people, regarding their mortality, and/or immortality.
Obviously, one of the first obstacles for us during this examination of reality is time. Time, considered not as some systematic clock, ticking, but as generation itself, may then be condensed and expanded again within memory. For a conscious being surely remembers that what was is not now. And even if we remove these stable platforms of ‘spatial-temporal orientation’ (the here and now), then without hesitation we can safely declare that reality has continued on, without our conscious awareness of it having done so, if we ever choose to reinstate them (we call this sleeping and waking usually).
By using this information, but not extending too far, we can deduce that, people die. A lot of people die. Statistically, it is almost certain that I will die. When we say this to ourselves, we probably get a little dread build up in our general sense of being. We can say it however, because we can say that reality continues on without our awareness, and therefore, even if we are unaware of the years building up to it, the fact that I am alive now, means that I will be dead in the future, for whatever ‘now’ I choose to use to ground myself in space-time. By augmenting the fact that I will die, with the original notion of reality as generation, I can prepare an answer to the question of whether my death is generation or not. Though it pains me to say it, because from here, being a conscious living being, my death seems like a tragic loss to the world, in actuality, it is merely the persistence of generation. And much to my dismay, I am party to this generation.
If I am so scared of dying, then could it be that I am scared of generation? If reality is generation, then I, as consciousness, am afraid of reality. However, this is not strictly true, for within reality, one can achieve certain degrees of stasis, meaning that a degree of respite is afforded to us, even in such a hostile world. Thus, if reality is generation, then it is the generation of stasis also. Though, I hasten to add, that it is consciousness (within reality) that is responsible for this stasis - in the form of replication. Replication cannot be considered objective, because without a conscious connection between two objects, one supposedly the genesis of the other, they are merely that – two objects. It is in the connection that they receive their father-son property; they receive the principle of replication. Replication is the term I use to grade emotionally-rewarding situations too, as objects, in that they produce similar results to other emotionally-rewarding situations. An afternoon spent with the family, or playing sports with friends, produce a degree of sentimentality in memory, which can be generalised enough to be satisfactory to allocate a replicating function to the conscious apprehension of the emotional response. Replication is intrinsically tied to memory.
Prior to writing this, I read a post which mentioned reincarnation, as in, regeneration of a single transcendent being, in many modes of consciousness, one after the other, in series. Is it possible for a reality which is what has not gone before, to allow for the subsequent re-generation of a being? My position is that it is impossible for reincarnation to occur – for in each object there is nothing of an original, merely a resemblance if it is consciously perceived. Two black pixels on the screen do not constitute each other. They are distinct. Just as each letter produced is not a timeless statue, but a fragment of it, as it is shattered and only exists in conscious synthesis. So it is true of consciousness itself - that is, when under examination by itself, consciousness constitutes a new generation of itself. It seems that consciousness is plagued almost, by its replicating functions.
The alternative to such out-of-reality-escape-paths is to embrace generation. This is done by repressing the fear even more than before – and seeing that you can. This reveals a certain a posterior power over base unconscious drives. In denying replicating functions their prevalent affection, we can consciously derive a new generation of affections in response to situations which until just now, would have ceaselessly attempted to restrain reality, to choke the generation.
Anyway, enough of my thoughts…
What do you think to the idea of ceaseless generation and mortality and reincarnation?
Also, what about consciousness itself, in terms of fearing reality (either evolutionary, or ‘spiritually’),
do you think that it is fair to say that consciousness is by degrees, opposed to reality?