Project

Consciousness, Reality, and Free Will

Goal: These papers and books are the result of my research on the nature of reality, understanding consciousness, and explaining free will and creativity. Now this live-long project is on hold because first, I have answered my questions in principle and second, due to a lack of long-term financing to go into more detail. However, I am ready to discuss my results with you.

Methods: logical determination, wholeness, "contradictions", openness/intuition

Date: 1 October 1985 - 30 April 2014

Updates
0 new
57
Recommendations
0 new
0
Followers
0 new
28
Reads
0 new
181

Project log

Claus Janew
added an update
Now The Full Version of my book and main work How Consciousness Creates Reality is available for download as well. I have revised the AI translation by myself (as a non-native speaker) in quite a short time, being fully aware that the result cannot be perfect this way. However, I would appreciate your judgement on the quality of this translation. Ist it understandable? Is it readable? Is it quite good? Please let me know...
 
Claus Janew
added 3 research items
Claus Janew
added a research item
The main argument in this book is the undeniable openness of every system to the unknown. And the fundamental question goes: What does this openness produce? We are a part of the infinite universe and an incorporation of its wholeness. Both for us means an individualized reality, through which the universe expresses itself and on the other hand through which it is built up with. It also means our necessity, importance and indestructibility for the sum of its incorporations. Most connections among ourselves are hardly conscious for us. Meanwhile the infinitesimality structure of all consciousness guarantees not only the logical lack of inconsistency of these connections but also the freedom of choice of every individual. Our goal by no means can be to decide completely consciously. Responsibility contains spontaneity or rather trust in a meaningful working together of the forces. We increasingly become aware of our role in the entire relationship and we learn to contribute optimally to the value fulfillment of all individuals, ourselves included. Beyond the supposed differences between objective and subjective reality, we at some point of awareness comprehend that we create our reality out of our innermost depths.
Claus Janew
added a research item
Radical constructivists do not speak of creating reality, but of constructing reality. What is the difference?
Claus Janew
added a research item
The leap from limit to arbitrariness has philosophical significance.
Claus Janew
added an update
Translation AI's have become quite good in recent years and so I decided to try probably the best of them, www.DeepL.com, with the full version of my German book "Die Erschaffung der Realität" using a custom glossary for my technical terms. Many subtleties and fluidity of the text have been lost, but as a readable and workable version, it is quite good, I think, especially after I inserted the professionally translated parts known from the abridged version "How Consciousness Creates Reality". The result is titled "How Consciousness Creates Reality. The Full Version" and for now will only be available for purchase and free online viewing. I plan to update the translation from time to time as the translation AI's improve.
 
Claus Janew
added a research item
Die Einzigartigkeit jedes Standpunktes, jedes Wirkungsortes, kann nur "überwunden" werden, indem der Standpunkt zu anderen Standpunkten wechselt und wiederkehrt. In solchem Wechsel, der auch als stetige Änderung erscheinen kann, liegt die Einheit der Welt. Die Ganzheit eines Wechsels jedoch ist eine Bewusstseinsstruktur aufgrund der besonderen Beziehung zwischen der umschreibenden Peripherie und dem infinitesimalen Zentrum. Diese Prozessstruktur vereint Bestimmtheit und Unbestimmtheit an jeder Stelle auch total. Wir haben es daher überall mit Formen von Bewusstsein zu tun, mit mehr oder weniger Wahlfreiheit und einer zunehmend unbekannten Tiefe. Wir leben in einer Welt des wählenden Bewusstseins oder besser: Gewahrseins. Insofern drückt unsere Umgebung eine tiefe Wahrheit über uns selbst aus.
Claus Janew
added a research item
The uniqueness of each viewpoint, each point of effect, can be "overcome" only by changing the viewpoint to other viewpoints and returning. Such an alternation, which can also appear as constant change, makes up the unity of the world. The wholeness of an alternation, however, is a consciousness structure because of the special relationship between the circumscribing periphery and the infinitesimal center. This process structure unites determinacy and indeterminacy at every point also totally. We are dealing, therefore, with forms of consciousness everywhere, with more or less freedom of choice and an increasingly unknown depth. We live in a world of choosing consciousness or better: awareness. In this respect, our environment expresses a deep truth about ourselves.
Claus Janew
added an update
The stem of the Reality Funnel "perspectively" summarizes the alternation of the less conscious standpoints. But if they don't just jump around there, they also retroact on each other more closely and in places are wound into cores, which harmoniously combine many perspectives. (Without harmony, they fell apart again.)
Such a comparatively harmonious core as, for example, our inner self can hold our Awareness (I) together, and it is likely that it will emanate more comprehensively harmonizing think and action impulses than the adapting roles of our small ego. On the other hand, this ego can often deal better with everyday situations. Therefore, both of them are best dedicated to their own topic and benefit only from the skill of the other. A harmony of this kind we can feel like a beautiful concert. Instead, once the ego is completely in line with the inner self, one can speak of unity, but hardly of harmony: The connection is too rigid and the duet probably short.
Harmony can thus be translated as meaningful correspondence and leads to a correspondingly meaningful definition of truth: The more unity or harmony of a content of consciousness with the more comprehensive level, the truer it is.
So retroactive alternations (interactions) lead to a loose hierarchical structure in which truth is dependent on the point of view, but not too much. The individual truths meet in a center being much less agile within their convoluted awareness. It is only when their awareness expands that even deeper truths are included that relativize the previous center at an even more comprehensive level.
If we imagine the reality funnel again, then inner inspirations come through the funnel stem regardless of whether impulses, ideals or sensations (all focusses of consciousness, since there is only perceived alternation). On the other hand, the most conscious circumscription takes place at the funnel edge, and the center of the overall circumscription lies exactly on the funnel axis. And here it gets exciting:
As explained on Freedom of Choice, we make decisions somewhere between the center and the periphery. The overall circumscription "disappears" but now in the funnel stem! It is compressed - "in perspective" to a greater degree of convolution - and ultimately coincides with the funnel axis. Ultimately, therefore, it is no longer possible to tell whether a decision is free or determined by an inner impulse! We can become conscious of impulses only further up, where we may then deviate from them.
Do we have reason to doubt our inspirations? This depends on whether they originate from our deepest being and our harmony with it. Because, as I said, truth is unity or harmony with the more comprehensive level. More comprehensive networking, however, is exactly what distinguishes a deep being from each of its appearances. So the deeper the origin, the more likely (and the more) our deepest being is involved, and the more trustworthy the inspiration is. And vice versa: The more authentically we express our deepest inner self, the more trustworthy we are.
Yet, this means even more: If we are not conscious of having chosen certain "conditions" of our lives, though they must have been chosen on the basis of our logical inferences, then it is obvious that these choices are made at a more comprehensive level and are significantly determined by our innermost Essence. In this respect, our environment expresses a deep truth about ourselves.
Translated from German:
Deleted publication
 
Claus Janew
added an update
If we can exist only in the constant alternation of perspective (sensory, psychic, mental) and this has to apply analogously to any place of effect (just worked, just different), how then does stability, something permanent, emerge?
Of course by repeating the alternation: of the thought, the point of view, the mutual confirmation, the effect. The alternation can be exactly repeated, however, only for an infinitely short moment; then it must reach beyond the repetition so as not to cancel itself out. That is, it changes as a whole and remains open. For stabilization an approximate repetition is sufficient, though. So for a long time we believe almost the same thing, for example.
Why, again, do we repeat ourselves at all? Because otherwise everything would disappear immediately, exist only for an infinitely short moment. But if something has gained minimal stability and thus forms a whole, it can have a further stabilizing effect, since a change with it as such now contains more repetition as well: Every alternation contains its sides, thereby "bringing" something of each side to the other. If one of them is relatively stable, the other is "addressed" again and again in a similar way and thus "seduced" to permanence. Or it loses connection eventually.
In the so-called "matter" it doesn't happen otherwise: It stabilizes itself this way in molecular interactions thus forming mountains, table and climate. Since it is nothing but small and large alternations of the place of effect, the entire alternation can be tracked in principle into the human brain and its mind - and vice versa from the mind into its brain into its environment. We find manifold intermediate stabilization of an emotional-mental, mechanical, electromagnetic, other, and unknown kind, all contributing to our relatively stable world, but never self-contained.
However, the wholeness of an alternation is, as described, a consciousness structure (see Consciousness I and Consciousness II). Consequently, we are dealing with forms of consciousness everywhere - with more or less Freedom of Choice (see there as well as Subconscious) and an increasingly unknown depth (see Awareness I and Awareness II). We live in a world of choosing consciousness or awareness. So constancy is wanted.
For example, we humans create juridical laws; animals, plants and bacteria form their own social rules; and the inter-actions of "matter" also fit into regularities, so-called "laws of nature." But the relative openness of any alternation system implies that it can change at any time with a certain degree of probability. Therefore, even "laws of nature" must be relative in some way.
Their stability in experimenting - as that of our lifeworld - is based on relatively closed "collective" reciprocal relationships. They mean the extensive exclusion of alternative paths of alternation and favor mutual "dependencies." What we believe we seek and find with greater probability, and what we find most often we believe. Again and again we change to there, with all the others who refer us to it, and displace the seemingly inappropriate "remainder". Ultimately, what is found and what is believed is inseparable and possible deviations abnormal. And by that we are even right: Our reality funnel is established.
Only of what we cannot change despite deliberate openness, we do not yet know why it opposes. On the other hand, it would be strange if we had unlimited potential with limited world knowledge - or understood our deepest intentions.
Translated from German:
Deleted publication
 
Claus Janew
added an update
If we weigh two alternatives, say job A and job B, then we weigh their respective priority. Each job has a certain probability of realization, which may change while we are weighing, whereupon the probability of the other one immediately adapts. That is, if we prefer job B, job A becomes less probable but remains accessible for a while in the background. With Job B we choose an individual probability hierarchy as such to our reality.
What about the other applicants? They are also part of our probability hierarchy along with their decisions. They are aspects of our individual awareness, which as a whole chooses a new individual reality, a new probability hierarchy. Conversely, this means that the other applicants have their own awareness and choose their own probability hierarchies. In the respective awareness, we all meet, but do not merge.
If we now choose Job B through and through, the others will choose Job A or C in our reality; more or less conscious. The same applies to the others in their realities. There is no contradiction, for in every individual reality, from every perspective, it is a common choice. Even after I get Job B, I can be aware of my alternate realities in Job A or C, meaning the individual realities intermesh and interact. Therefore, it may not be easy to come to terms with yourself through and through. But once that is done, the corresponding reality follows inevitably.
There is also no perspective in which everyone chooses Job B through and through, because in the application situation the individual preliminary decisions of all applicants (and many others) for specific working conditions already converge: Only one person can have the job, not every one for an hour or all at once. And so, an all-want-job-B-through-and-through-situation would contain an inner contradiction pushing for resolution from the start: through a different choice of the candidates; preferably "on time", but also shortly before signing the contract. Please observe yourself in your application situations: I'll bet you already know in advance if you'll get the job - and basically agree (deep inside, predominantly). As notorious doubters we just like "bank shots" and let confirm us by the hiring manager. Nevertheless: The final decision of all parties may be made, as they wish, only at the last moment.
Simplistic, because it is more vivid, we can perceive all individuals as "cones" of their probable changes: We all move together like spirits (or ghosts) at a distance from each other under a single tissue of probabilities that adapts to our shapes and movements. The fabric shows the "visible" interweaving of our options and decisions, letting us guess even more potential. We must at least roughly coordinate our decisions for one or the other direction of movement with those of all other spirits to not distort the fabric too much or get caught up in it. The priorities and thus the probability shapes adapt to each other until they predominantly harmonize.
The probability of developments as a fifth dimension in addition to space and time not only makes us seeing black and white, but also recognizing a variety of alternatives in the background playing around us like waves. This in turn leads to a more conscious cooperation with others and an expanded awareness of our possibilities.
The figures of this chapter can be found below the main text here:
Translated from German:
Deleted publication
 
Claus Janew
added an update
If we combine the results of "Consciousness I" and "Consciousness II" as well as "Awareness I" and "Awareness II", the following picture emerges:
  • That which exists for us in the circumscribing alternation of perspectives as their common approximation is conscious to us.
  • If perspectives slip away from the approximation, we still can be aware of them. They exist as such in constant alternation.
  • Everything that exists dynamically (that is in alternation), transitions funnel-like from the most conscious "opening" through a perspective "narrowing" channel into an awareness that we can call subconscious.
  • This subconscious ultimately extends to All That Is.
Subconscious things therefore exist even if we do not consciously "look"; because subconsciously we always look (again and again). We are "vanishingly aware" of All That Is. This means we are "alternatingly" connected to it and can also expand that awareness. We can also dive into that awareness with the focus of our consciousness – widening the funnel stem only at certain places – and return richer of knowledge, hunches, and sensations.
What are we conscious of there? What do we discover when we dive into it? Other worlds, other types of linking, the essence of other people? Yes, every day – and most at night. We can learn to bring back more of these impressions. But even without that we are discovering much of our own essence here.
Let's expand our list of insights by one point and take into account our "Freedom of Choice" with the second:
  • Since consciousness and awareness only defer in the degree of emphasis of the circumscribed central area, both are a single i-structure.
  • I-structure chooses its further change – within the constraints imposed on it by "other" i-structures.
We seem to be surrounded by such constraints. Even what our neighbor chooses, can impair us, and with the door frame we can't truly talk. But let's remember any awareness being a hierarchy of probable realities with the most probable here and now. If we choose a different reality funnel, all probable realities are restructuring for us. However, these realities still exist as themselves. Their respective top-positions also exist within awareness, just not here and now for us.
So we do not have to defeat our neighbor, because in another reality he has long consented. We must only choose this reality. (He may do the same with that reality, in which we have consented.) To do this our focuses of consciousness in other affected areas of life should be in agreement with this choice. That is we should harmonize in our awareness the hierarchy of our own inner choices. Then the neighbor goes where we both want him to go. (Even the version in which we both choose mirror-inverted we are aware of without contradiction, just not here and now as prior-ranking.)
Why then is the door frame so firm? It is not: Take a sledgehammer and smash it to pieces! But I think you want the frame. You want the earth and the sun. You want conditions. Why these very conditions – that would be a question for that subconscious in which we hope to find more of our essence.
Translated from German:
Deleted publication
 
Claus Janew
added an update
When every perspective is individual and when structures only arise from circumscribing alternations, then alternation cannot be restricted to the "Awareness (I)" of a human. Rather, any standpoint, any point of effect, must alternate and must result from alternations. (Ultimately, it is the alternation of infinitely small points of an i-structure – defined in "What is Consciousness? (I)".
From this consequence there follow more:
  1. In principle, we must be able to posit ourselves into the individual awareness of other people (and even into nonhuman awareness). In fact, we empathize with others, or we would not be able to agree on something. We approximate their standpoints again and again at least and by that talk to persons who resemble them. If we would posit ourselves completely into them, our consciousness would quickly be overwhelmed and had to suppress the most into the subconscious.
  2. The change of a standpoint is the change of the whole reality (a rearrangement of the "Reality Funnel"), namely from a foreseen, probable reality to an even more probable, the actual reality. While one reality takes priority, the others fall into their subordinate position. They become or remain potential, just as the currently prior reality was. But they do not disappear: They continue to be standpoints within awareness.
A standpoint as a point of effect, as the momentary peak of reality and center of structure-forming changes, goes far beyond what we normally understand by "consciousness." Such a point can be anywhere; in an ant, in a star, in a vacuum. It would be meaningless if no alternation culminated in it, no circumscription defined it. Ultimately, there is only alternation as such – all-encompassing and therefore infinitely fast: All That Is.
If the shape of the alternation forms a circumscription (ant, star, space), it begins to prefer this particular movement to others and, as it were, to filter it out. By intertwined repetition the movement appears slower, although the all-encompassing alternation is still happening. But it is now largely hidden (deep in the stem of the reality funnel).
  • Because circumscribing shapes create from the start what we have recognized as consciousness ("Consciousness I"), we can also speak of an all-encompassing consciousness.
  • Because alternation never stops and only happens between more or less conscious things ("Consciousness II"), we recognize an all-encompassing awareness.
  • Because consciousness also means "Freedom of Choice", we are dealing with a choosing all-encompassing awareness.
Some would call it "God" - a god "living" in everything and everyone, since everything is a phase of his movement. At the same time "He" is on such an unimaginable path that his decisions are eventually "unfathomable." On the other hand, our decisions are part of his. That is, what we decide is important. It creates another awareness of All That Is, a unique hierarchy of consciousness, a complete reality.
And only our reality follows our path. Even in God it is new.
Translated from German:
Deleted publication
 
Claus Janew
added an update
In "What is Consciousness? (I)" we have considered the formation of i-structures by circumscription and in "What is Awareness? (I)" the alternation of perspective as such. But basically, both are one and the same.
Circumscribing movement – consciousness – is of course an alternation of individual viewpoints. And perception of an alternation – awareness – also circumscribes a constant center. The difference between emphasized circumscription and emphasized alternation lies in the density of the circumscribed central area. If the circumscribing alternation (for example, between facades) forms an object (a house), the content-dense center symbolizes its unity ("being inside"). If the alternation is perceived more as such, the object character is thin ("Are there several houses or one?").
The maximum of the unity lies in the intuitive center point, whereas the maximum of the alternation consists in the alternation itself. That is, the alternation is authoritative and the circumscription derived. (Without facades no inside.)
Now, however, the "trace" of the alternation (the sequence of facades) is more or less curled up in the memory, that is compressed, and the respective awareness is incompletely conscious of the entire alternation (say, between three bare walls with corners and a few windows). The rest (more windows, attic, back wall) leads into the just-not-conscious, into a narrowing.
Awareness includes a consciousness of this transition ("closer, to the back"). Yet consciousness is in a sense the "upper" section of awareness, whereas awareness as such includes the just-not-conscious "further down" by alternating with it. This is more than a point by point transition or a coagulated potential. Out of the alternation between the conscious and the subconscious, the awareness "receives" impressions and ideas, so to speak, which escape the more static consciousness ("a chamber somewhere").
All in all, consciousness resembles a funnel whose rand represents the circumscribing (alternation) movement which is compressing and narrowing itself and transitioning to the just-not-conscious with the funnel's stem. Only the center point of the whole movement is always remaining conscious. The awareness, in contrast, is following the stem to the other side ("to the back, around the corner"), meaning it is switching to the consciousness there, whose stem is leading back again.
The difference is not strict: Consciousness is always awareness! Awareness is also conscious, but points beyond that and involves always more than what is just now conscious. Alternation does not allow it to be nearly frozen. With the consciousness we only try to ignore this, and then its own changeable nature escapes us, the awareness, from which it "unscrews."
The connection of awareness and consciousness has also been indicated in "Individuality and Reality": By alternating individual perception, a common approximation is being constructed, a conscious reality (a rolling pen, a house). Because the alternation coiling is compressing itself while forming approximations and the alternating standpoints are "vanishing" in the funnel stem we do not have an overview of the reality formation. However, since consciousness always creates approximated commonalities the consciousness funnel is a reality funnel. It creates reality out of the funnel stem by approximating individualities into one consciousness, but nowhere by relinquishing them. Everything remains awareness.
The figures of this chapter can be found below the main text here:
Translated from German:
Deleted publication
 
Claus Janew
added an update
The uniqueness of each viewpoint, each standpoint, can obviously be "overcome" only by changing the viewpoint to other viewpoints. And returning. Such an alternation alone, which can also appear as constant change, makes up the unity of the world.
Apprehending this dynamic unity exceeds mere consciousness because consciousness (I) always tends to circumscribing condensation, which is creating symbolic, quasi-static objects. In contrast, the change to other viewpoints – other individual attitudes – is of course more open. I call the perception of this alternation awareness.
Awareness is never "solid." It is always the becoming of something else, more precisely of many others: It is constantly arising from this reciprocal movement and consists only in it. Thus, it is also perception of potential.
But whose potential? No, not ours, if by "ours" a quasi-static self-image is meant. Because such an image would already be largely defined. Instead, in order to change for example from the individuality of an official to the individuality of an artist, the official must be "dissolved" and newly condensed to an artist. Not the official has moved himself, but the alternating between one and the other has been differently curled up. Both the official and the artist are aware of their alternative self. Besides, both are aware of the potential perspectives on the way from the office to the studio and back again. And they are also aware of the possible attitudes in the cinema or theater. And the different positions inside the office, the studio, and at home.
Though the awareness changes with each attitude, it includes all potential standpoints. Sometimes one takes precedence - it is more real and less potential - sometimes the other. Sometimes the awareness is more limited, for example to the pages of a file, then open again with a view into life. However, even in the file the artist occasionally comes into play and in the artist the pedant; and at home both of them.
Spiritually, we alternate faster than mentally or physically, because the psyche and the body are more "tightened." The psychic alternation structure is more deeply convoluted, and also the body is the result of relatively stable alternations ("interactions"), which we hardly overlook. But, strictly speaking, there is no place where we can say "Now we have changed position," because "we" consist exclusively of convoluted alternations. There is basically only awareness.
Well then, who is aware of the alternation of the awareness? Nice trick question.
In reality, awareness is always alternation between other awareness, namely, between perspectives of the entire alternations. The awareness changes as I said the rank, the hierarchy of potential attitudes. When the "officialdom" speaks the inspiration is largely silent and vice versa. What the official is also aware of, however, is the subordination of his awareness in the awareness of the artist (and so on). With the awareness then also the entire nesting of descending priorities, viewpoints and turns alternates.
So what are we aware of in a nutshell?
  • Everything unique is contained in everything unique.
  • Alternation of uniqueness is the most natural thing in the world.
Translated from German:
Deleted publication
 
Claus Janew
added an update
The question of whether we can freely choose between several possibilities without just imagining this freedom or confusing it with chance leads us to the truth about our responsibility. For if we had something to answer for, which came from us, but was not decided by us, it would be no more than the responsibility of a cloud for its rain.
To find the solution, we consider the simple choice between two continuations of our day, for example whether we go to the cinema or the theater. Actually, we like both, though sometimes we feel more like one thing than the other. Today we really do not care; we could as well throw a coin. But we do not - that would be too cheap. We are pondering. We are putting ourselves in the cinema, then in the theater, and back in present, and so on. In this way we are circumscribing the wholeness of the decisive situation, the present being its center. Strictly speaking, this center is infinitely small, right in the middle of the whole circumscription with all its details. That is, in us.
In the periphery, in turn, our perception of the cinema is influencing the subsequent perception of the theater and vice versa - and again our present and vice versa. The vagueness between the certain alternatives is condensing to the certainty of the decisive situation up to its exact center, which on the other hand is completely neutral thus behaving indecisively. So, the whole situation is undetermined again, and so on.
We are not done yet: Cinema and theater inside and around as well as the paths there with all the details are also being circumscribed by the movement of our attention. Instead of letting our thoughts circle around a cinema we could also wander to the subway and the dance club and forget about the theater. Rather, we are intentionally focusing on weighing up goals, seats, access routes. That is, the certainty/uncertainty structure also applies to every detail of the tradeoff process. And by that small decisions are necessary everywhere. We can nowhere escape this decision-making structure – it is an i-structure (infinitesimality structure).
This process structure unites determinacy and indeterminacy at every point also totally. For by referring to each other and merging into the center of the wholeness thus circumscribed they are not even partially separated there.
So, where is the respective "point" of decision? It is obviously not in the neutral center between the alternatives, but between the center and the periphery, in that very center between certainty and indeterminacy. Wherever that is exactly. Because "that" can only ever be in-between, otherwise it would be a side. You can only "limit" but never fix it. It is actually distributed throughout the process, only concentrating around central points - all in all in us, but in the direction of our goals and between them.
From this i-structured unity of sub-unities cannot merely, but must come a free decision. This is the only way, the only meaningful description. It does not matter that the choice for outsiders could have also been mostly coincidental or conditional. Coincidences and conditions like weather and timetables of course contributed to the decision and limited their scope in the peripheral area of the process. But the periphery is just one side of the whole - one of the not decisive ones.
Translated from German:
Deleted publication
 
Claus Janew
added an update
Whatever consciousness is, it must have structure. Even emptiness can be defined only in contrast to abundance and nonduality versus duality (as the word says). Or it's just "Mu". And that would be the end of this paper - and everything else.
I suggest we allow ourselves some more time and try to start from a consciousness that is as concrete as possible, from a conscious object, say a glass of water. We perceive something that we distinguish from ourselves. We also differentiate it from its environment (table, cupboard, room) and determine it in relation to other known things (table, cup, plate) to what it "is". That is, we circumscribe its existence by comparisons. It is also being stabilized by external and internal interactions (pouring and drinking, molecular attraction and repulsion).
We can question these interactions ever more deeply and will never find a bottom. Biological processes, mechanical laws of motion and physical fields remain empty without a structure circumscribing them. That is to say, we can regard circumscription as a basic property of everything conscious and thus of consciousness.
Now, at the heart of every circumscription there results something hugely underrated so far: the central point. A single point relating directly to the whole. As for the water glass for example, it is the center of gravity and optical center or, if both differ, the center circumscribed by them, and so on. Because only the whole as such has a center. Through each division new centers (those of the splinters) arise and by each change (such as a bordering with handle) another one. Even if the change is symmetrical (without handle): Since the central point, like any other point, is nothing in itself and has meaning only in relation to a particular wholeness, another whole circumscribes another central point - also in the same "place" (here the center of a bordered glass). And even the point next to the center is the center of something else (say, a unit of glass and spoon).
Thus, there is a unique relationship between the infinitely small - infinitesimal - center and the circumscribing wholeness. To ignore the center point would be to ignore the whole thing. In the periphery (marginal zone), in turn, the external border is significant for the whole, in this way emphasizing its relation to the center point.
Since this structure holds for all parts of an object as well as for their relations to the wholeness, between the center and the periphery, and between this center and its periphery, and so on, I call this entirety infinitesimality structure or i-structure.
Of course, the relationship between us (the object of our self-consciousness) and the more external object is also i-structured. And when we dive into an object, we find there only different i-structures: trembling "particles", vibrating "fields", circumscribed "laws".
So, we have defined no less than the surface of consciousness. What we intuitively view as the "unity of the object" condenses symbolically around the center, that is, we perceive the unity stronger there, because at the center point it is closest to the wholeness. (Even in the empty glass: If a bit chips off, the center hardly changes and so we still have a glass.) "Parts" are perceived as more peripheral, where they also "crumble" more easily. Since consciousness is always in circumscribing motion condensing more or less static objects, I call it quasi-static.
Translated from German:
Deleted publication
 
Claus Janew
added an update
Your Individuality is far more than a little peculiarity. It is a view that nothing and nobody has except you. Otherwise it/he/she would be you. Also, you will have changed your perspective – yourself – in the next moment, and you cannot turn back time.
For convenience we come to an agreement about "common" objects, which allegedly everyone perceives, although each views from his own standpoint. If you watch me rolling a pen across the table, you may believe it being the same pen I see. However, I see something completely different than you. There is not the slightest match between my perception and yours. Because otherwise I would sit in your place, have your thoughts, memories, and emotions, connecting them with a shape rolling towards me.
If we can both talk about a single pen, it’s because we already as children have agreed about what we want to consider approximately as a common object and more specifically as a pen. We also did this early for ourselves by changing our own perspective and recognizing the relative stability of certain shapes. Should you now realize that "someone" is rolling such an approximated object across the table you have changed the view again: You have put yourself approximately in his perspective and have returned to your own. So you can conclude that a common object is rolling there, "only" seen from different sides. Actually, you have merged two indivisible perceptions over several steps into a unity, which emphasizes a "part" of your own perception (pen) as well as a "part" of the perception of the other person you just "spied on" (pen).
The unique perspectives thus create an approximated commonality by mutual exchange, a so-called real pen.
The widespread assumption of a pen independent of perspectives, conversely, leads into the void if you keep asking "what" it consists of: molecules, these of atoms, these of elementary particles, these of fields, and these of laws of change. But change of what? It is an endless loop.
However, no concept yet can explain why a rolling pencil can be quite stable: It neither breaks nor does it change direction if I only think so. I have to touch it. And then it changes for both of us (on condition that we both look "there").
In the Perspective Exchange Concept, we therefore have to start from still largely unknown processes stabilizing our perception. Their effect must be in accordance with proven physical laws. Both conclusions are consistent.
The concept of an independent reality, on the other hand, is a crutch for projecting stability into things not really understood, thus largely concealing individual perceptions. This is not consistent.
I do not doubt macro- and microphysics. They describe what they are looking for, especially processes of "common" objects. But we must also say that if physics is not fundamental, but everything basically remains individual, then everything has to be explained in another way as well. Physics does not become superfluous, but subordinate. Psychological connections will play an important role, but they too are not fundamental enough. Rather, the most abstract and simple structures of consciousness are to be used first.
Translated from German:
 
Claus Janew
added 5 research items
Can we trace back consciousness, reality, awareness, and free will to a single basic structure without giving up any of them? Can the universe exist in both real and individual ways without being composed of both? This dialogue founds consciousness and freedom of choice on the basis of a new reality concept that also includes the infinite as far as we understand it. Just the simplest distinction contains consciousness. It is not static, but a constant alternation of perspectives. From its entirety and movement, however, there arises a freedom of choice being more than reinterpreted necessity and unpredictability. Although decisions ultimately involve the whole universe, they are free in varying degrees also here and now. The unity and openness of the infinite enables the individual to be creative while this creativity directly and indirectly enters into all other individuals without impeding them. A contrary impression originates only in a narrowed awareness. But even the most conscious and free awareness can neither anticipate all decisions nor extinguish individuality. Their creativity is secured.
This article is not an attempt to explain consciousness in terms basically of quantum physics or neuro-biology. Instead I should like to place the term "Consciousness" on a broader footing. I shall therefore proceed from everyday reality, precisely where we experience ourselves as conscious beings. I shall use the term in such a general way as to resolve the question whether only a human being enjoys consciousness, or even a thermostat. Whilst the difference is considerable, it is not fundamental. Every effect exists in the perception of a consciousness. I elaborate on its freedom of choice (leading to free will), in my view the most important source of creativity, in a similarly general way. The problems associated with a really conscious decision do not disappear by mixing determination with a touch of coincidence. Both must enter into a higher unity. In so doing it will emerge that a certain degree of freedom of choice (or free will) is just as omnipresent as consciousness - an inherent part of reality itself.
Everything is in motion. "Inertness" arises from (approximative) repetition, that is, through rotation or an alternation that delineates a focus of consciousness. This focus of consciousness, in turn, must also move/alternate (the two differ only in continuity). If its alternation seems to go too far - physically, psychically or intellectually - it reaches into the subconscious. In this way, interconnection is established by the alternation of the focus of consciousness. Therefore, in a world in which everything is interconnected, all focuses must reciprocally transition into each other. "Reality" is a common "goal", a focus which all participants can switch into and which is conscious to them as such, as a potential one. Its "degree of reality" is the probability of its fully becoming conscious (or more simply: its current degree of consciousness). Thus, a reality is created when all participants increase its probability or, respectively, their consciousness of it.
Claus Janew
added an update
The core of my work can be seen as the well-known unity of opposites, but applied in a new manner and with the strongest consequence possible.
However, it seems not really helpful to conclude from there as a starting point, for every "application" has to be (and has been) reasoned independently to prove its validity. So the unity of opposites itself is more a result and becomes a “starting point” just in this way. Nevertheless, it provides a connection to philosophical traditions (Hermes Trismegistus, Yin/Yang, Heraclitus, Cusanus, Hegel).
One can also try to lead up from Alfred North Whitehead, Ernst Cassirer or structuralism by thinking their basic ideas more strictly and synthetically.
The hint for mystics: If you condense the seven hermetic principles into one, you get my infinitesimality structure and thus free will.
 
Claus Janew
added an update
Reading again through the rare English discussions of my work I must acknowledge two main reasons for my work not (!) being read:
1. "There are no references."
2. "There is no 'scientific' structure of the text (introduction, discussion, conclusion, etc)."
My answers to these objections are:
1. There are no references simply because I don't refer to anyone (with few exceptions). Instead I have developed this philosophy mainly from scratch for good reasons.
2. There is not much introduction, but of course there are conclusions, though mostly not separated by headlines since these texts are not for scientific readers only. Discussion of other viewpoints is missing (though not always) due to the lack of time (money) for this huge job, which would not contribute equivalently to the core in my opinion (see no. 1).
Not everyone has those objections, however, and it strikes me that these readers tend towards creativity like me.
 
Claus Janew
added an update
Ernst Cassirer came close to my concept of conciousness (infinitesimality structure).
 
Claus Janew
added 2 research items
Zuordnung der Grundbegriffe meiner Theorie zu bekannten Kategorien wie Bewusstsein und Realität
Claus Janew
added a research item
Dies ist kein Versuch, Bewusstsein im Grunde quantenphysikalisch oder neurobiologisch zu erklären. Stattdessen möchte ich den Begriff "Bewusstsein" auf eine breitere Basis stellen. Ich werde daher von der alltäglichen Realität ausgehen, von eben dort, wo wir uns als bewusste Wesen erfahren. Ich werde den Begriff so allgemein fassen, dass sich die Frage auflöst, ob nur der Mensch über Bewusstsein verfügt oder nicht schon ein Thermostat; der Unterschied ist zwar beträchtlich, aber nicht fundamental: Jede Wirkung besteht in der Wahrnehmung eines Bewusstseins. Entsprechend allgemein gehe ich auf dessen Wahlfreiheit ein, meines Erachtens die wichtigste Quelle von Kreativität. Die Problematik einer wirklich bewussten Entscheidung verschwindet nicht, indem man Determination mit einem Schuss Zufall mixt. Beide müssen in einer höheren Einheit aufgehen. Dabei wird sich ergeben, dass ein gewisses Maß an Entscheidungsfreiheit genauso allgegenwärtig ist wie Bewusstsein - ein inhärenter Bestandteil der Realität selbst.
Claus Janew
added a research item
Radikale Konstruktivisten sprechen nicht davon, dass wir Realität erschaffen, sondern dass wir Wirklichkeit konstruieren. Was ist der Unterschied?
Claus Janew
added 2 research items
Alles bewegt sich. „Ruhe“ entsteht durch (annähernde) Wieder¬holung, das heißt durch Rotation bzw. einen Wechsel, der einen Bewusstseinsfokus bildet. Dieser wiederum muss sich ebenfalls bewegen/wechseln (was sich beides nur in der Feinheit unterscheidet). Führt sein Wechsel psychisch, physisch oder geistig zu weit, reicht er ins Unterbewusste. Zusammenhang wird somit durch den Wechsel des Bewusstseinsfokus hergestellt. Daher müssen in einer allzusammenhängenden Welt alle Fokusse wechselweise ineinander übergehen. „Realität“ ist ein gemeinsames „Ziel“, ein Fokus, in den alle Beteiligten wechseln können und der ihnen als solcher, als potentieller, bewusst ist. Sein „Realitätsgrad“ ist die Wahrscheinlichkeit seines vollen Bewusstwerdens (oder einfacher: sein aktueller Bewusstheitsgrad). Eine Realität wird demnach erschaffen, indem alle Teilnehmer deren Wahrscheinlichkeit bzw. Bewusstheit heben.
Das Buch, das Ihnen hier in stark gekürzter Fassung vorliegt, entstand aus dem Bedürfnis heraus, unser Wirklichkeitsgefüge unvoreingenommen von etablierten Lehren zu untersuchen, seien diese nun akademisch-wissenschaftlich, populär-esoterisch oder religiös. Wir werden mit scheinbar einfachen Wechselwirkungen in unserem täglichen Leben beginnen, ihr Zustandekommen auf tieferem Niveau untersuchen, Bewusstsein in seinen Grundzügen verstehen und schließlich erkennen, dass wir unsere Realität vollständig selbst erschaffen. Währenddessen öffnen sich wenig beachtete Zugänge zu unserem Unterbewusstsein, anderen Individuen und dem, was man unter "Gott" verstehen kann. Den alles verbindenden Kern bildet die Lösung des klassischen Problems der Willensfreiheit.
Claus Janew
added 13 research items
Consciousness forms a unity with the subconscious as such, into which it fluctuates constantly, however. "Subconscious Determination" is therefore the influence of subconsciously made decisions, in which we were involved ourselves, but even now we are not helpless in the face of those.
The physical paradigm contains serious distortions or inconsistencies which are resolved by infinitesimality structure.
This article is not an attempt to explain consciousness in terms basically of quantum physics or neuro-biology. Instead I should like to place the term "Consciousness" on a broader footing. I shall therefore proceed from everyday reality, precisely where we experience ourselves as conscious beings. I shall use the term in such a general way as to resolve the question whether only a human being enjoys consciousness, or even a thermostat. Whilst the difference is considerable, it is not fundamental. Every effect exists in the perception of a consciousness. I elaborate on its freedom of choice (leading to free will), in my view the most important source of creativity, in a similarly general way. The problems associated with a really conscious decision do not disappear by mixing determination with a touch of coincidence. Both must enter into a higher unity. In so doing it will emerge that a certain degree of freedom of choice (or free will) is just as omnipresent as consciousness - an inherent part of reality itself.
Claus Janew
added a project goal
These papers and books are the result of my research on the nature of reality, understanding consciousness, and explaining free will and creativity. Now this live-long project is on hold because first, I have answered my questions in principle and second, due to a lack of long-term financing to go into more detail. However, I am ready to discuss my results with you.