Axioms, Existence, Consciousness and Identity
“If we look at the etymology for axiom, we can see how important concepts are in our lives. An axiom is related to what we think is worthy, fit, of value, of weight. It comes from the Proto-Indo-European word ‘ag-ty-o‘, with the root ‘ag’ meaning to drive, draw, and move. Axioms are those beliefs that we take into ourselves at a core level that drives us, that draw us in a direction, that move us, they are weighty influences on our lives. It is important to not be deceived and manipulated into accepting falsities; otherwise the direction we go in may be built upon a flawed foundational understanding.”
Download .mp3: Axioms, Existence, Consciousness and Identity
‘Ag-‘ relates to ‘ga-‘ (from kind) in meaning as well as being the inverse in letters. ‘Ga-‘ indicates an association, togetherness, completeness or wholeness. Ga relates to ge- and genus, generation, care, etc. All of this generation, care, begetting, happening, is the action, the effect that culminates from internal causal forces of consciousness – thought and emotion. Action has the same source as axiom, ag-. To get to ga-, the resulting complete wholeness of something manifesting, you need ag-, an active driving force, that drives, draws and moves us. These are from within consciousness. These are images that reflect reality directly, or indirectly through a conception. We then generate with these internal forces the external results we produce as a whole complete manifestation from our consciousness — thoughts, emotions — as actions out into the world. At least that is how proper manifestation occurs in unity consciousness.
Axioms are supposed to be rooted in reality to give us firm grounding in truth and have our perceptions and conceptions aligned with reality, but that does not always happen. Some of the most basic aspects about ourselves and reality need to be recognized. Existence and consciousness are the basic two axioms to start from. We exist, things exist, and we are aware that things exist, and that we exist. These are the first basic observational points to start building knowledge from. These two foundational axiomatic points can always be used for grounding in all our conceptual frameworks. All other thoughts that do not lead back to these foundations, can likely be regarded as pure imagination.
“reality,” “existent,” “stand forth, come out, emerge; appear, be visible, come to light; arise, be produced; turn into,” from ex- “forth, out” + sistere “to set, place, cause to stand,” from PIE *si-st-, reduplicated form of PIE root *sta- “to stand, set down, make or be firm,” with derivatives meaning “place or thing that is standing”
1540s, “standing out above a surface,” “stand out, be visible, exist,” from ex- “out” + stare “to stand,” from PIE root *sta- “to stand”. Sense of “in existence” attested in English by 1560s.
Existence sets up, places, sets down, makes firm, sets forth and causes to stand forth the extant objects within its framework/model/structure. Existence is reality. Existence is what is. For you to talk about anything presupposes the necessity of existence. For you to talk about anything also presupposes the necessity of the existence of consciousness – the “action, quality, or state” (-ness) of being conscious.
1630s, “internal knowledge,” from conscious + -ness. Meaning “state of being aware” is from 1746.
from Latin conscius “knowing, aware,” from conscire
“Meaning ‘aware or knowing, particularly of one’s surroundings or existence,’ conscious was brought into English around the turn of the 17th century as a learned borrowing from Latin conscius ‘knowing something with another.’ This was the adjective form of the Latin verb conscire ‘to be mutually aware,’ from com/con ‘with, together’ and scire ‘to know.’ This prolific verb is thought to have been a loan translation of Greek syneidos ‘to know,’ which likely was derived from the prehistoric Indo-European root skei.”
“conscience, innermost thoughts, desires, intentions; feelings”, “knowledge within oneself, sense of right, a moral sense,” “be (mutually) aware,” from com- “with,” or “thoroughly” + scire “to know”.
Probably a loan-translation of Greek syneidesis, literally “with-knowledge.”
present participle of scire “to know,” probably originally “to separate one thing from another, to distinguish,” related to scindere “to cut, divide,” from PIE root *skei- “to cut, to split” http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=science&allowed_in_frame=0
PIE root *skei- “to cut, separate, divide, part, split”
scio (Italian) knowledge, From Proto-Indo-European *skei- (“to split, to dissect”), (compare Ancient Greek σχίζω, Avestan (fra-sānəm), English science, Proto-Germanic *skajj-ōn, Celtic scian (“knife”).)
Consciousness originally relates to knowledge, which all animals have. Later, this represented awareness itself (since awareness is required to acquire knowledge of reality), and then to the more restrictive “self-awareness” requirement to justify our violence towards other living beings. Since existence is ‘what is’, consciousness is awareness of ‘what is’.
Those who are against comparisons to recognize difference and division, are against knowledge itself. This is the fundamental way we understand reality. This is discernment (“to separate, set apart, divide, distribute; distinguish, perceive,” from PIE root *krei– “to sieve, discriminate, distinguish”). It is breaking open reality and seeing what it is made of, rather than seeing it as one amalgamation.
One way to demonstrate (show, to stretch in front of and make visible, to point out) aspects of reality, is to speak about it, diction (from PIE root *deik– “to point out”). In diction, speaking about reality, we need to discern it, separate and perceive different parts. Diction is also a root for judge (a compound of ius “right, law” + root of dicere “to say”). We are all judges, we all judge and discern reality. The goal is to align conceptions of reality with actual reality in order to speak and say what is right, good and true, to judge accurately, not incorrectly. Interestingly, krei is also related to crime, (e.g. crime and judgment), through crisis, which is the root in discernment shown earlier. Crime is likely from the same root as crisis (krei) as we can see the relation in cognates of other languages: Greek krinesthai “to explain;” Latin cribrum “sieve,” crimen “judgment, crime,” cernere (past participle cretus) “to sift, separate;”. As is shown, ‘cri’ relates to explain, sieve, sift, separate, hence judgment and as a corollary criminal wrong, unjust, that is discernible in reality from non-crime, right and just. To discern, judge, distinguish, differentiate, diagnose, assess, evaluate, etc. are all related to understanding reality, as I outlined in my previous work on the Dualistic Conceptual Framework.
Identity is “sameness, oneness” (form of Latin idem “the same” (from id “it, that one)), because the thing that has identity is one and whole in itself, it is a unit, an individual particular substance. Identity is an aspect of existence. The things we point out in existence stand out on their own because they are one from the many, they are separate. Instead of being a flat page, existence props up objects for us to discover and unveil hidden universals that many particulars in reality share at a substantial or non-substantial level. Existence is what is, consciousness is aware of what is, and identity simply is whatever it is.
When we come to know reality in greater degrees of accuracy, when we are consciously aware to greater degrees, it is to be conscience, to be “with-knowledge”. To have knowledge within oneself, the quality knowledge of reality and ourselves, is as the etymology describes it, to have knowledge of the “sense of right, a moral sense”. The basic purpose of the foundation of knowing reality and identity, of evolving consciousness, is Morality, objective truth regarding right and wrong behavior in reality in order to progress along the positive evolutionary pathway of the Force and Will of Creation. For what purpose does any knowledge have to serve us if it leads to our self-destruction? In the end, all that knowledge is worthless, and results in evil due to the absence of objective moral understanding of reality.
Primacy of Existence vs. Primacy of Consciousness
The basic metaphysical issue that lies at the root of any system of philosophy [is] the primacy of existence or the primacy of consciousness.
“The primacy of existence (of reality) is the axiom that existence exists, i.e., that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness), that things are what they are, that they possess a specific nature, an identity. The epistemological corollary is the axiom that consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists—and that man gains knowledge of reality by looking outward. The rejection of these axioms represents a reversal: the primacy of consciousness—the notion that the universe has no independent existence, that it is the product of a consciousness (either human or divine or both). The epistemological corollary is the notion that man gains knowledge of reality by looking inward (either at his own consciousness or at the revelations it receives from another, superior consciousness).
The source of this reversal is the inability or unwillingness fully to grasp the difference between one’s inner state and the outer world, i.e., between the perceiver and the perceived (thus blending consciousness and existence into one indeterminate package-deal). This crucial distinction is not given to man automatically; it has to be learned. It is implicit in any awareness, but it has to be grasped conceptually and held as an absolute.”
– “The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made,”
Philosophy: Who Needs It, 24
“Observe that the philosophical system based on the axiom of the primacy of existence (i.e., on recognizing the absolutism of reality) led to the recognition of man’s identity and rights. But the philosophical systems based on the primacy of consciousness (i.e., on the seemingly megalomaniacal notion that nature is whatever man wants it to be) lead to the view that man possesses no identity, that he is infinitely flexible, malleable, usable and disposable. Ask yourself why.”
– “The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made,”
Philosophy: Who Needs It, 28
“They want to cheat the axiom of existence and consciousness, they want their consciousness to be an instrument not of perceiving but of creating existence, and existence to be not the object but the subject of their consciousness—they want to be that God they created in their image and likeness, who creates a universe out of a void by means of an arbitrary whim. But reality is not to be cheated. What they achieve is the opposite of their desire. They want an omnipotent power over existence; instead, they lose the power of their consciousness. By refusing to know, they condemn themselves to the horror of a perpetual unknown.”
– Galt’s Speech,
For the New Intellectual, 151
“It is important to observe the interrelation of these three axioms [existence, consciousness, and identity]. Existence is the first axiom. The universe exists independent of consciousness. Man is able to adapt his background to his own requirements, but “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed” (Francis Bacon). There is no mental process that can change the laws of nature or erase facts. The function of consciousness is not to create reality, but to apprehend it. “Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification.”
The philosophic source of this viewpoint and its major advocate in the history of philosophy is Aristotle. Its opponents are all the other major traditions, including Platonism, Christianity, and German idealism. Directly or indirectly, these traditions uphold the notion that consciousness is the creator of reality. The essence of this notion is the denial of the axiom that existence exists.”
– Leonard Peikoff,
The Ominous Parallels, 303