Solve et Coagula

                         Solve et Coagula is Latin for; to take apart and to put back together again. It is a famous alchemical formula. I use it here to highlight the complementary rational functions of the Meta Formally Logical processes, ENUMERATE PARTITION and SYMMETRICAL COALESCENCE. {Apr. 11th, 2013}  We are blessed with these two very complementary complex conjugates for intelligence. [Left Brain / Verbal / Deductive / Nominative / Particular] * [Right Brain / Non Verbal / Inductive / Cumulative / Gestalt] They work in seemingly dissimilar ways.

                        We will be looking at neuroanatomy, aesthetics and philosophy as we plumb the origins of human consciousness. The popular modern arguments tend to suggest that sentience is the exclusive domain of humans and language. "In the beginning there was the word." I, however, will be exploring the kinds of intelligences that are non verbal. And I would like to offer that maybe self awareness is not the same thing as linguistic self referencing. Were we to say that sentience is a purely rational process, then we could assert that the primacy of language is for identifying and indexing the ordering principles of self awareness. But if my research is correct, we may not be able to exclude the intuitive mind from this phenomena called self awareness or sentience. And I intend to demonstrate that the basic ordering principles of language and intelligence derived originally from aesthetics. Does the love of beauty not rise to consciousness until it is named? Or does our awareness emerge from somewhere much deeper, much earlier. Language maybe thought of as a very singularly human behavior. Or at least that's what many believe.

                         I feel these questions become most pertinent when we debate the intuitive. Because intuition is an inductive reasoning process it is either right or wrong. But as I have already said, intuitions are perfect for distinguishing that which is not yet known. There is a kind of unease we feel in the face of so much awe and uncertainty. I call it, "INTUITIVE APPREHENSION." Is not life amazing, all by itself? But how much more amazing is this awareness, with which we witness life? Let's take it apart and put it back together again.

                         In the same way people have asked; "What created God?" Or "Was there anything before the Big Bang?" And "Where did consciousness come from?" The first two questions I leave to theologians and astrophysicists. The third is an easier one to define because it maybe an emergent phenomena. If we can identify origins for language we are in the right area. If we look into human history, at the point we predate writing we call this "Prehistory." There are many oral traditions that predate written history.

                         There is a beautiful mythical beast called the "Worm Ouroboros." Like the snake that swallows it's own tail consumes its self, it is not unlike that mystery of this thing we call self. Self consuming, self sustaining, self destroying, sounds like consciousness. My teacher once said, "There are no higher or lower levels of awareness, there is only awareness." And we have that mysterious quotation from the Upanishads, "The self is ubiquitous." Awareness is a phenomena that defines itself, only exists within itself and has no limit other than itself. (Yawn!) This isn't helping.

                          Let's look outside our own language of human definitions. I'll try to answer each of these questions.
           
                          Do Dolphins, Elephants, Apes, Dogs, etc, have an actual language and or do they communicate without semantics? (Granted that formal semantics do involve the unit objects; Right, Left, Up, Down, Forward, Backward, Before, After, Inside, Outside.) Our perceptual ordinations are this meta formally logical extension of these simplest of all of the namable divisions in space and time. Bees use a little dance. They take instructions and give instructions to other Bees using directions and distance by the number of their waggles.

                          Do we define these people as being sentient and self aware; Autistics, Developmental Challenged, Narcissists, Ignorant, and so on? And if they are sentient and self aware, to what degree? Question is, how do we understand this actual awareness of self outside of the acquisition of language? Can we say that someone who has limited perceptions is less self aware?

                         Do we only experience remembering our earliest childhoods through the language and words we use to construct and retrieve memory? I don't even know if I'm asking this question in the right way. Can we experience remembering things before we have had the language to identify what we are recalling? Understanding can drive a clear path into and through memory, but the mind still wanders, (We forget. We can forget what we have remembered. If I know enough to look, I often can remember almost anything, but that seems to have been learned. I've always remembered subjective self awareness from very early infancy. Bottle feedings, diapers, the basinet, those little bathes in the sink.) What we remember is both intentional and unintentional. Do I remember all of this stuff only because I had read about remembering to remember it? Could I remember to remember without language? I may never know.

                        As we are getting to the evidentiary part of this exercise, we will be looking at the self contradictory nature of both self awareness and it's awkward language.