We know that data moves across space and time from event to event,
from object to object, same thing, by cause and effect.  The cause from
an earlier event makes an effect, impression, imprint on a later object,
which then can be used to study the first object.

     One thus learns about the original referent which sourced the data
in a causal messenger wave (ie photons), by looking at a symbol for the
referent, which is ANOTHER event or object a distance way, both in space
and in time.

     Symbols are LATER in time from the referent, by the time the symbol
comes to be, the referent is gone, because its moment of time is gone.
Later times are new referents even if they look the same.

     Let's call the referent R1, and as it is replicated through time,
R1 becomes R2, R3, R4, R5 etc.

     Some time later when R1 has become R7, the cause wave hits the soon
to be symbol object changing its state according to the nature of R when
it was R1.  At that moment when the symbol is impinged upon by R1, R1 is
completely gone, it doesn't exist any more.  R1 has been replaced by R7
which the symbol doesn't know exists yet.

     Thus the symbol can only track the PAST of the referent.  By
tracking we mean changing state due to the nature of the referent a
while back.

     The causal messenger wave sourced by the referent passes through a
remote object (namely the soon to be symbol) and changes it, thus the
symbole learns something about the referent, namely how the referent
caused the symbol to change state.

     The rendition zone is the area of the symbol that was actually
affected, and the change itself is the rendition, or data imprint, that
is made on the symbol as a causal result of the referent.

     It's pretty clear to see that learning about a referent by looking
at later effects in a symbol remote from the referent provides evidence
and theory about the referent, at best, total nonsense at worse.

     One renders the nature of the referent on the symbol, namely on the
rendition zone of the symbol.

     One interprets the nature of the referent from the rendition on the

     The referent 'teaches' something about itself to the symbol via
rendering something in the rendition zone of the symbol.

     Referent -> Rendition -> Symbol.
     The symbol and those observing the symbol, 'learn' something about
the referent, via interpretation of the rendition in the rendition zone
of the symbol caused by the referent.
     Symbol -> Interpretation -> Referent.

     This process of teaching and learning is called indirect

     It is also clear that a conscious observer can't even see the
symbol unless the symbol has an effect on the consciousness of the
observer who then becomes merely another symbol in the chain of symbols,
as the causal messenger wave propagates through the observer out further
into space and time.

     In this case the observer's consciousness is the rendition zone,
and the rendition is the conscious experiences the observer has as 'a
result of' the original referent.

     The observer and his consciousness have become an effect of the
original referent.

     Thus the symbol of final authority in any learning event must be
the observer himself, more specifically his consciousness, and its new
state as a result of the impinging cause originating from the referent.

     But one is still left with the question how does a conscious
observer observe his own consciousness?

     If a conscious experience like red and green are separate events
from the observer who sees these events, then again the imposition of
space, time, dimension, or difference of any kind between experience and
experiencer makes them two different objects, and thus there is no
direct contact between them.

     Thus one would have to postulate yet another causal messenger wave
between conscious experience and experiencer and yet another rendition
zone in the experiencer that is NOT his consciousness, and yet another
rendition in the experiencer which is NOT his conscious experience.

     You see this leads to an infinite regression.

     Thus by reductio ad absurdum the postulate that experience and
experiencer are two different objects must be wrong.

     Thus the being can see his own consciousness because he has direct
perception of it, because he IS IT.

     He has allowed his conscious experience, which he can directly
perceive, to be enslaved to be used as a symbol for something else not
it, namely referents out in the alleged phyiscal universe.

     Ultimately the process of learning about referents by looking at
symbols which are different from the referent must end somewhere, or
else we just have dominoes falling forever each one the effect from the
earlier one, and none of them certain about anything, because being an
effect does not prove there was a cause.

     Thus we say that consciousness is self luminous, it can see itself.
because it IS itself, the seer and seen are one.

     Thus the conscious experiencer is the same object as the conscious
experience of red and green, and it is a grand illusion that perceiver
and perceived, that the I and red and green, are two different objects
from each other.

     This means that the conscious experiencer can see the referent
directly (his conscious experience) without having to look at or be yet
another later symbol.

     Thus the original referent (red and green) BECOMES the symbol of
final authority, the I learns about the referent by looking at the

     That is the definition of direct perception, looking at what you
are looking at, rather than something else representing what you want to
look at.

     This is called a self symbolizing event, a referent that is also
its own symbol.

     One could also call this a self referencing event, a symbol that is
also its own referent.

     One could also call this a self evidential event.

     "The existence of a fundamental operating actuality is self
evident." - Sufi

     The existence of the referent is self evidence for its own
existence.  One doesn't need to look at a later symbol to find out about
the referent!

     But the only thing that could possibly be 'self' evident, is
whatever 'self' is.

     For nothing can be self evident across a space time distance.

     Thus anything whose existence or nature is self evident to you,

     Thus you are anything you can see or experience.

     That red and green out there, that's you looking back at yourself.

     That's what you look like in a mirror.

     Your consciousness is acting like a holographic mirror, and
everything you see in the mirror is just you, what you look like at that

     Thus we conclude that self evident, self symbolizing, self
referencing and self luminous all mean the same thing.

     Technically they all mean no separation between referent and
symbol, no two different objects referring to each other.  One doesn't
learn about the referent by looking at ANOTHER symbol later in space and
time, one learns about the referent by looking at the referent directly

     It also means the referent and symbol are tracking each other IN
PRESENT TIME, in the NOW, thus there is no space or time between the
referent event and the symbol event.

     Physical tracking between referent and symbol is always across a
space time distance, thus referent and symbol MUST BE two different
objects, and can only act as evidence and theory to each other.

     Conscious tracking between experiencer and experience, looker and
looked-at, seer and seen, perceiver and perceived, is instantaneous, a
no time event, or else you couldn't see the perceived as it would
already be gone by the time 'it' got to you.

     And this process of conscious learning is also called direct

     There is more to self luminousness than mere self referencing or
self symbolizing events, and that is the difference between mere BEING

     One could in theory have a self referencing chain of pure cause and
effect that effected only pure BEINGNESS.

     Self luminousness adds KNOWING into the mix of mere self
referencing beingness.

     Dominoes falling are a causal chain of mere beingness, nothing
knows anything, everything is simply in what ever state it is in, and
the various states change according to the cause wave moving through the

     But no domino KNOWS anything, although its mere beingness could be
considered symbolic 'knowledge' about the nature of what caused it to
fall.  But such knowledge would be unverifiable evidence and theory at

     So yes consciousness is self referencing, as there is a kind of
learning that is causeeffect in the same moment, but consciousness is
also self LUMINOUS, in that it knows what is causing it to know.
     Consciousness can see not only the red and the green directly, it
can also see the causal agency between the red and the green and one's
certainty there are two different colors causing it to see that there
are two different colors!

     That is quite impossible in a purely mechanical universe of parts
interacting via cause and effect across a space time distance.

     That's because each effect can only see itself, and effect does not
prove cause.

     The conscious universe, the perceiver can see the CAUSE AND THE
EFFECT and can see that the cause is indeed the cause of the effect.

     Cause is existence of red and green.

     Effect is certainty of two different colors, AND the certainty that
two different colors are causing the effect.


Homer Wilson Smith     The Paths of Lovers    Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF        Cross            Internet Access, Ithaca NY    In the Line of Duty
Tue Mar  2 03:41:21 EST 2010