THE RAW DATA OF EXPERIENCE ONLY BECOME EXPERIENCE UPON BEING THOUGHT ABOUT.

"UNREMEMBERED MEMORY" IS AN OXYMORON.

 It is difficult to grasp something that is not graspable by a human hand. Or by an “analog” of a human hand. (Pliers, description, picture, concept, theory, . . . ) And “grasp” does, doesn’t it, assume “analog of a human hand” in its initial conceptual formulation?

And what else could we mean by “understand” except something like “grasp.” (This question has been essayed by numerous writers, perhaps illuminatingly, surely at least modestly edifyingly. At least some of them, at least for me.) Probe? Make graspable? Analyze? Taste? See? Feel? (Current Black idiom: feel me?) 

Might “understand” mean something different for an octopus, a spider, an as yet unimagined space alien?

Humans begin conscious life by making the first distinction. Given the way we think, this can lead us to ask “might some other physiologically constructed/evolved and environmentally embedded kind of living being begin conscious life otherwise?” Of course, all our attempts to answer would appear in the form of distinction.

-------------

The base explanation of creation is that it is necessary.

Creativity is just however we manage to open the gate for whatever is necessary to appear. (The gateway to the pleroma-as-substrate-of-reality, to the [as-yet-]uncreated.)

It is like the reverse of the liar paradox, except turned inside out . . .

to become necessity, instead of impossibility. 

(What’s the opposite of a paradox?)

LoF, quite simply, is just the way we think. The form of distinction is the form of our thought. 

To think is to take as given the idea of distinction and the idea of indication. 

The familiar laws of our own experience follow inexorably.

(LoF are the laws —laws are necessary regularities— of how we think.) 

(Life can surely live without making indications. But, at least for us —thinking about it as we do— all living beings seem to make plenty of distinctions.)

The world that we (can) think about conforms to the Laws of Form, as we think about it, to the extent that we (can) think about it.

{Our thinking does not need only to appear as internal language use, internal utterances. But it can only appear in *some representative form*. **Representative not necessarily as picturing, but as standing-for**. Some mental means of marking our distinctions ... marking our distinctions in the mental space that is the current active "global" mental workspace, the very short-term memory field that comprises conscious awareness, both sensory and imagined as simpler/truncated sensory markings to substitute "inside" for what they stand for, either outside or inside. When we are thinking *about* something, we are *imagining* an *ordered stand-in for* what we are thinking about. **(The ordering constitutes an address system for locating the representative item and indicating its relationship to other such items.)**

In any existent or nonexistent universe comprehensible by us, thinkable by us, being or existence is necessary. Since not-being or non-existence requires it.

If there is nothing,

something necessarily is.

The base explanation of creation is that it’s necessary.

And the next step is always necessitated by the previous one.

Succeeding

Prior 

The succeeding step is always necessitated by the prior step.

(On the one hand some answers to some questions are unthinkable.

On the other hand, . . .)

------------------

The base explanation of creation is that it’s necessary.

Creativity is however we manage to open the gate for whatever is necessary to appear.

(Some of us are disposed both to hear the knock and to exert the skillful effort to answer it.)

[It is that dual disposition that a machine lacks.]

It is like the reverse of the liar paradox, except turned inside out . . .

to become necessity, instead of impossibility. 

(What’s the opposite of a paradox?)

LoF, quite simply, is just the way we think. The form of distinction is the form of our thought. 

To think is to take as given the idea of distinction and the idea of indication.

"The familiar laws of our own experience follow inexorably."

(LoF are the laws —laws are necessary regularities— of how we think.) 

THE RAW DATA OF EXPERIENCE ONLY BECOME EXPERIENCE UPON BEING THOUGHT ABOUT. (Dewey)

IT IS ONLY A MEMORY ONCE REMEMBERED.

"UNREMEMBERED MEMORY" IS AN OXYMORON.

In any existent or nonexistent universe comprehensible by us, thinkable by us, being or existence is necessary. Since not-being or non-existence requires it.

If there is nothing,

something necessarily is.

[To human minds,

for there to be nothing,

there must be something to distinguish it from.]

(To be nothing is an odd locution, isn't it?)

And the next step is always necessitated for the previous one to be possible.

(On the one hand some answers to some questions are unthinkable.

On the other hand, . . .)

Sublime necessities, it seems to me, are more complicated than I have the wherewithal to say much of.

On a slightly more practical note, some philosophers are starting to say that what we are is living persons.

--------

And the next step is always necessitated for the previous one to be possible.

(On the one hand some answers to some questions are unthinkable.

On the other hand, . . .)

Sublime necessities are a longer story.

On a slightly shiftier note, some philosophers are starting to say that what we are is living persons.

-------------

Sublime necessities are so cool, aren’t they?

On a slightly shiftier note, some philosophers are starting to say that, instead of machines, what we are is living persons. (The long persistence among philosophers, and longer development, of the intellectual style for reduction to material/mechanical simples might be starting to recede.)