ArticlePDF Available

Abstract

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
Dynamic Existence
(Edition extended by Individuality and the Physical Paradigm)
Abstract: 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.
What is real?
I am an individual. Nothing and nobody else occupies my standpoint. Otherwise, he would
be I.
Thus, all what I perceive is individual, perspective of an individual, part of me.
The computer screen should be a part of me? And when my daughter is sitting beside me:
is it a part of her, then? And she herself would be a component of me?
Consequently, it must be so.
But why is the screen a part of her? Why are they both not just component s of me? Why
the detour over her?
One could renounce this detour. But this would not be consistent:
My daughter differs from the screen, and, nevertheless, I perceive both. That is there is
mediation between both within my individuality. This mediation can consist first in my
shifting attention from one to the other. While this, my individuality permanently changes a
bit, because it is an entirety of its components.
Then I can sit down to the place of my daughter and experience another perspective and
individuality thus again. Is this that to my daughter? No, of course it is only a geometrical
point of view. However, again this point of view is mediated with my first one, while I
alternate the views mentally or physically, more or less fast.
Claus Janew: Dynamic Existence 2
Now there speaks my daughter and means, the monitor display is poor in contrast from
obliquely. This reminds me of my perception on her place, and I conclude from it, her
statement must deal something with my perception there. And consequently (alternation!)
also with my perception on the present place.
Because she has spoken, at other times, also of other things with me, I have understood
her perception, her approach to life, already to a bigger extent and, therefore, subordinate to
her an own individuality - with a screen as a component.
What has happened? I have permanently alternated positions (attention, viewpoint,
approach to life), though always found me in just one. Does this work logically at all?
Apparently not. Since if I am not any more there, I am evidently her e. Can I be, however,
only here? Probably also not. Then I would know nothing from there, but only from here,
my individual reality. Though this could be enough for me, actually, my individuality itself
arises from such standpoint alternations.
This fact results from the uniqueness and entirety of the individual (in Latin „the
indivisible“). Because it is not divisible without changing the individual, it differs from all
others in any regard. Agreement at any place would presuppose the division of the
individuals, namely in the not unique overlapping and the unique remainder. Instead of an
overlapping, we would have thus an own individual.
1
Hence, a static individual could be not
even subdivided, because everything we consider, for example, as a part (or com ponent) of
ourselves just thereby is an indivisible perception position: every organ, every cell, every
particle, every wave, every thought. It completely differs from the entirety, because it can
nowhere agree with the whole. Without alternation between the components, we could not
become the individual that we regard as ourselves. We would be without structure, nothing.
Therefore, every individual exists only in the alternation of the individuality. There is no
Here or There, but only the alternation between all, with a right now priority position. Thus,
the standpoint is a phase of the dynamic individual. Everything that exists for the individual
exists dynamically.
2
Why then do we consider things seldom as so changing? We say they are relatively
constant. Although we know that movement is at the heart of everything, that every
1
Only in infinitely small points, the individuals can meet. Since these are nothing without individual deriva-
tion.
2
As well as the individual himself, because every standpoint also is a dynamic individual that „derives“ from
the others etc.
Claus Janew: Dynamic Existence 3
individuality changes itself. Or we say, the movement is relatively continuous, so at every
moment the whole is itself. At all, the whole is complete and the part is a part.
Everything properly. All these phenomena arise from the structure of the dynamic, of the
alternation. Approximately closed successions of change generate relative constancy. Finely
gradated change seems relatively continuous. And different extent of the alternat ions makes
the difference between „part“ and whole.
Before we can explain this closer, we must accept logically that the dynamic existence
reaches to the infinitely small. No entirety is elementary, because without structure it would
be infinitesimal, could not have an effect, not even as a needle sting. After all, we measure
everything by its effect. Even an energy quantum cannot shirk, because it has a certain
„size“; and it can be only measured (perceived) when it reveals an effect structure, on an
electron, for example. But a structure means alternation between individuals (see above). In
the case of the energy quantum between the states of the electron, what the quantum arises
from. To put the effect down to an elementary quantum, therefore, would not be logical.
Without structure no effect (and vice versa) whomever one assigns the effect to. Exactly this
effect also expresses itself in the energy size of the quantum (and not vice versa).
Yet, in the end, we find between the varying individuals and in the center of every
individual only an infinitesimal point. That is the alternation happens, actually, between
single points. Though, of course these are defined by alternation only, so that alternation
turns out again as the basic structure. Because this basic structure extends to the
infinitesimal, I call it infinitesimality structure.
The form of the alternation, therefore, is the form of the infinitesimality structure. If an
individual never returned, exist“ only one infinitesimal moment, nobody could grasp it. If
it returned precisely, nobody could perceive its change. Hence, there should be - aside from
the change from A to B and B to A’ - also a change from A to B’ as well as from B’ to A
etc.
3
, so that an approximate unity of A and B is weaved.
In the middle (unity!) between A and B, a quasi-static approximate object of the
alternation thereby comes out. Not the previously mentioned tissue, but rather a symbolic
form circumscribed by it. This already resembles that what we usually call a thing.
4
If the
unity predominates, the object is denser, like the tissue. If the difference predominates, it is
thinner, sometimes hardly discernibly, because it is due to a more peripheral fabric.
3
Moreover, also between A’ and A, A’’ and A’ etc.
4
To be precise: For the individual A who becomes aware of its phase B the approximation between them is a
potential to the existence of B. If it becomes aware of the alternation between two other phases of itself, the
approximation seems concrete.
Claus Janew: Dynamic Existence 4
The approximation - whether dense or thin - is also individual of course, with an
infinitesimal center of identity, so that an alternation takes place between identity and
difference of A and B, between oneness and multitude. In the last consequence between the
central point and periphery, and again the center inbetween and its periphery etc. In the
course of this, also spiral tissue and approximations are produced between all centers and
peripheries: there originates an entire, more or less uniform thing.
5
In the case of the screen the thing is dense: we change from edge to edge, edge to center,
pixel to pixel; all individual settings - identity centers - in the awareness of their
dynamically existing alternatives.
Nevertheless, between my daughter and me the difference predominates; no approximate
object crystallizes out, although we feel an ethereal quasi-static unity between us.
If I extend the dynamic of my standpoint to the situation as such, now I alternate between
relatively independent „parts“ (screen, daughter, I), while I put myself into the position of
my daughter, realize a solid monitor etc. I perceive from the respective position an
individual totality; and over and over again also from the center of the whole“ situation,
which I arrange individually as well.
Does this mean a universal definition of existence on the base of individuality
alternations? Yes, because another existence than an individual one is not consistently
generalizable.
The alternation does not happen necessarily physically (whatever is meant by
„physically“). It depends only on the position of perception. The need of the infinitesimality
structure to grasp this dynamic shows that we can speak as well of consciousness or
consciousness foci. Since nothing is solid, everything are back -coupling alternation
structures of alternations.
These also must not be space-temporal. This is only our habitual perception. Alternation
can and will take place in every state space formed by quite different coordinates. How
these alternations are arranged by perception, is open, too. Dreams and associations are an
example of this.
Nevertheless, the logical consequences are bigger: If everything exists only in the
alternation of the individuality, this alternation must enclose the whole universe! No
alternation can be separated from the others completely, run possibly in parallel, because
5
Because the approximation is basically a potential to the reproduction of the in each case other side, she can
be no additional individual, but was present from the beginning of the alternation - as an original change
partner who went over to an other one and is now the center.
Claus Janew: Dynamic Existence 5
this would mean an absolute division of the universe. That is we speak of one single
alternation.
If the universe is unlimited - and for a final limit there is in no direction a reason - then the
position change must occur at infinite speed. („Speed“ as its space-temporal interpretation.)
This is the basic speed from which every relatively limited consciousness is filtered out by
the form of the alternation. Such filtering forms are narrow back couplings, which reduce
the superficial frequency of the change, slow down movement apparently, so that the
quicker frequencies work only in the little conscious background. Just as well as if I
concentrate upon the screen and „forget“ my daughter besides, while I am still aware of her
and a lot of farther. Even the macrocosm has not disappeared completely. Only the details
are not resolved any more.
6
If the form shows a finely gradated structure, it seems solid. If it proves in addition a drift,
we have a continuous movement. If it is closely t ied and variously intertwined, it will not
dissolve fast. If it more allows spontaneous change, it will develop new, but related stru c-
tures.
What does it mean, actually, to say „we“? Do „we“ see anything? Also this „we“ and
„our“ something originate from the exchange of positions - while we transform (!)
subjective information back and forth and create thus an approximate collectivity.
7
It needs a paradigm change from the view of „objective objects to the awareness of a
dynamic individual that alternates through all realities and determines itself by the form of
this alternation. Despite it is unusual: The infinite basic speed gives every way to it.
8
Even
with a relatively steady awareness of my individuality, with a self-filtered consciousness,
sitting here, I am at every moment a phase of the unlimited alternation. The terms
awareness, individual, standpoint, consciousness, focus are basically synonymous. I only
structure with them the all-embracing dynamic. If I sit down from one place on the other, I
do nothing else, than to relate phases of my unlimited alternation back coupling to each
other and thus design a local change.
6
From this the reality funnel originates, as it is described in my e -book „How Consciousness Creates Reality“
in the chapter of the same name. This is the very abridged version of my book How Consciousness Creates
Reality. The Full Version.
7
See the chapter „Projection and creating approximations“ in „ How Consciousness Creates Reality
8
I have thought through all basic questions, which arose to me from this result. Here their discussion would
be too extensive. Please, read my Dialogue on Alternating Consciousness.
Claus Janew: Dynamic Existence 6
What is creation?
The infinitesimality structure of focus dynamic has another two essential consequences:
1. The freedom of choice of consciousness is automatically integrated. I have founded
this in my article Omnipresent Consciousness and Free Will as well as in my e-book
How Consciousness Creates Reality.
9
In brief: Weighing describes a back coupling between alternative changes. This
indefiniteness circumscribes an entirety and defines it thus up to an infinitesimal
center. However, in a decisive situation the indefiniteness of the progress is also an
indefiniteness of the situation as a whole. The alternatives are defined on the other
hand as those very well. That is definiteness and indefiniteness of the situation can
be separated from the decision-making process at no place, they actually arise from
it. Besides, the peripheral structure of the whole and its most internal core establish
an infinitesimality-structured unity. This unites definiteness and indefiniteness also
totally. In this totality both are assimilated, are not even partly di stinguishable.
Hence, from this totality every new definiteness is freely chosen.
2. All consciousness is also tied together immediately with each other - not only by
immediate focus alternation, but by the central identity in every „braked“, with
apparently limited focus speed. I have explained this in the mentioned e-book, too.
10
The approach: Every consciousness is in infinitesimality-structured relation to all
others. In this relation, the center of every consciousness is also identified with the
center of the totality, because such unity centers are at every place between“ part
and whole. Accordingly, the decisions of partial consciousness and whole
consciousness from the unity with these centers are also identical.
If we consider in addition the described presence of all individual realities in the
awareness of our own, we get a shimmering, adaptable „consciousness net“ from which
every consciousness chooses its reality permanently. According to structure of the network
one reality is more likely and the other one less. If consciousness makes a probable reality
its actual one, the others „fall down a bit“, lose probability. They become potential.
Because our current awareness is tied together with all other awareness indirectly and
immediately, consciously and less consciously to subconsciously, it can come to an
agreement with them about a collective approximate reality. The biggest part of the
coordination will take place for capacity reasons subconsciously (nevertheless, always
9
See the chapter „Consciousness the infinitesimality structure”.
10
See the chapters „Consciousness the infinitesimality structure” and „Our permanent choice”.
Claus Janew: Dynamic Existence 7
within awareness), so that we must make not too big thoughts about the form of the world.
Also, its stability will be maintained naturally subconsciously. For this we have recognized
the general structure, although we do not know most concrete processes yet.
Accordingly, the creation of a collective reality would be the decision of all participant
individuals for a priority approximation of their positions and the fading out of others. This
can be illustrated by the origin of the screen. From all states to which all individuals are
fluctuating permanently, a not too improbable one (the vague „idea“) is „condensed“ in a
physical object by the inventor / manufacturer. He raises that advance-felt (or investigated)
probability by attention, skill and energy application to 100%. Then it is handed over to us
„attention-energetic“, is selected by us in this form from the huge number of offers. Other
versions are not considered any more. We fade them out. After that, we further construct
from the acquired approximate object a more individual screen, our very own one (as
described) from which the manufacturer gets as a rule nothing more. However, our screen
remains more narrowly related with the prototype than the prototype with the vague „idea“
selected by the inventor - this „idea“ has hardened on a higher level. The friends who visit
us (!) may now easily construct a similar screen on our desk.
We maintain the stability of the „material object“ partly consciously, because we
appreciate it. We also find the way back repeatedly - consciously and half consciously - to
the state of screen consideration (i.e. home). And if the object is broken, in the end, we let
recycle the atoms. Only how the consciousness net maintains physical laws and human
prejudices is widely unsolved.
How much we can consciously create, therefore is left to our experimental joy and
personal development. There is no lack of guides to it. According to my experience, our
possibilities are clearly bigger than materialists believe, but their probabilities often are not
so high as many others promise. „Matter“ is compressed consciousness, however, the
„matrix“ wants to be taken along.
11
Two subtle questions arise if one considers the timelessness of the alternation between all
„past“ and „future“ individuals:
1. If every focus, every individual, every reality is run through permanently, how can
we create then a reality? How can it be really new?
To put it briefly: The way is more than the goal. Though every individual is a phase of all
others, however, its awareness is a unique hierarchy of probabilities, which exists only if it
11
Allusion on the feature film of the same name in which the „matrix“ stands for the collective consciou sness
network.
Claus Janew: Dynamic Existence 8
is just taken. Though it is generated at every moment again, the filtered, slower way from
peak A to peak B is not! Although it shows a partial frequency of the infinite, there it is only
here and now where it is walked.
2. If everything already exists in the focus movement, is there then a universal
development, or is everything merely repeated?
This question is related to the preceding one, and so the answer is easy.
12
The unique slow
way does not recur most probably, because it is infinite. Also, it can be hardly repeated by
someone else (or ourselves), because our freedom of choice makes it unpredictable.
Somebody who wanted to follow it would not make the same decisions.
Another question on the direction of individual development leads us to the concept of
value fulfillment, which can be assumed maybe from the above if we include the asymmetry
between restriction that is more quasi-static and dynamic infinity. I would like to close here
with a self-citation: „Value fulfillment cannot be determined by a goal. It exists rather in its
own prospering, it is in itself way and goal, an experienced awareness and timeless. It
means feeling the own meaning in the world, also the own significance, and living
according to this value feeling. This feeling encloses its own growth, as well as the growing
awareness of a more comprehensive whole in which it is secure.“
13
Individuality and the physical paradigm
The physical paradigm contains serious distortions or inconsistencies:
1. The Brain is seen as the ultimate "perceiver". But who perceives the brain? The
brain again? This is a circle, where my concept of circumscription comes in.
2. Reality is seen as physical after all, and by "physical" our paradigm is meant.
From this a limited view of information derives. Here, my infinitesimality struc-
ture suggests a deeper view from which "information" derives.
3. "Physical" also means "objective", and objectivity is considered to be "not part of
the observer" (the term "observer" contains this misunderstanding in itself). So
where in this world is the observer? Observed by whom? Or not observed at all?
Infinitesimality structure means, that there is no object in itself. Objects only condense
from universal change by circumscription. This change is an alternation between
12
Both questions can be refined in several directions, which is why I have dedicated to them an own cha pter
(„The indestructibility of the individual”) in "How Consciousness Creates Reality. The Full Version".
13
How Consciousness Creates Reality. The Full Version”, Chapter Value fulfillment“.
Claus Janew: Dynamic Existence 9
individuals, and these individuals are condensations of this change, too. So neither firm
objects nor objective individuals exist. There is only change or alternation in itself (structure
of alternation).
Quantum physics describes another form of alternation than classical physics. There seems
to be a basic unity, an elementary quantum. To perceive (or think) such a quantum, however,
needs circumscription of "it", condensation of a movement. Again, there is no quantum in
itself, although we treat it as such and limit our focus on it.
How then can it be circumscribed so stable? This is the question to be asked, while not
simplifying it to an object in itself (except for practical use).
In this concept there is no exclusive observer, there are only individual views (=
individuals). Every view is unlimited at the end (and so are the individuals), but is limited
asymptotically by self-reflection aimed at a controllable world and at building structures at
all. (A continuous plenum reflects on limited structure to define itself.)
To view the world infinitesimality-structured means to think beyond elementary quantum
and quantum information, because "information" is already a condensation, a permanent
attuning of alternating individuals (individual views). No information is transmitted: An
attunement takes place by condensating a change, changing position, and decondensating
individually. The whole process is precondensated before of course by developing a
"common" language, establishing a "common" infrastructure etc., and by unknown
processes, too.
Alternation is unlimited, because logically there cannot be a limit without the possibility
to cross it in principle. I know that logic is thought by humans, but on the other hand
thinking is seen as an appropriate tool to relate to the bigger world. It must be so, otherwise
we would not (self-) exist in it. Although our thinking may be inconsistent, it cannot be
meaningless to the bigger extent. Although the "ultimate" observer does not e xist, individual
standpoints do exist; and so does their attunement.
Infinitesimality and infinity are consequences of limitlessness with respect to the existent
meaning of the individual thinking. They can be well a camouflage for unperceived
structures, but they always point beyond the perceived ones and they always remain
essential values to deal with.
www.free-will.de
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. First published 2009-2010.
Article
The physical paradigm contains serious distortions or inconsistencies which are resolved by infinitesimality structure.
Book
Full-text available
Das Hauptargument dieses Buches ist die unleugbare Offenheit jedes Systems zum Unbekannten hin. Und die Grundfrage lautet: Was ergibt sich aus dieser Offenheit? Wir sind ein Teil des unendlichen Universums und eine Verkör­perung seiner Ganzheit. Beides bedeutet für uns eine individuali­sierte Wirklichkeit, durch die sich das Universum ausdrückt und durch die es andererseits mit gebildet wird. Es bedeutet ebenfalls unsere Notwendigkeit, Wichtigkeit und Unzerstörbarkeit für die Gesamtheit seiner Verkörperungen. Die meisten Verbindungen un­tereinander sind uns kaum bewusst. Indessen gewährleistet die In­finitesimalstruktur allen Bewusstseins nicht nur die logische Wi­derspruchsfreiheit dieser Verbindungen, sondern auch die unauf­hebbare Wahlfreiheit jedes einzelnen Individuums. Unser Ziel kann jedoch keineswegs darin liegen, vollkommen bewusst zu entscheiden. Verantwortung schließt Spontanität bezie­hungsweise das Vertrauen auf ein sinnvolles Zusammenwirken der Kräfte ein. Wir werden unserer Rolle im Gesamtzusammenhang zunehmend gewahr und lernen, einen optimalen Beitrag zur Wert­erfüllung aller Individuen, einschließlich uns selbst, zu leisten. Jen­seits der vermeintlichen Unterschiede zwischen objektiver und subjektiver Wirklichkeit begreifen wir, dass wir unsere Realität aus unserem tiefsten Innern heraus erschaffen.
Article
Full-text available
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.
Article
Full-text available
The present text is a very abridged version of a book I wrote out of the desire to examine the structure of our reality from a standpoint unbiased by established teachings, be they academic- scientific, popular- esoteric, or religious in nature. We will begin with seemingly simple interactions in our daily lives, examine how they originate on a deeper level, come to understand the essentials of consciousness, and finally recognize that we create our reality in its entirety. In the course of this quest, we will uncover little-heeded paths to accessing our subconscious, other individuals, and that which can be understood by the term "God". And the solution to the classical problem of free will constitutes the gist of the concepts thus revealed.