A Foray into Will vs Consciousness: Some Remarks

Peakian Dyad may be viewed as Will rather than Consciousness:  Reflections after reading Woodsprite's Critique of Dark Knight. . .


Kant tells us that "the world is empirically real but transcendentally ideal",  and in terms of the dyad,  one could say that this describes the eidolon and the daemon.   I have often thought that  -  philosophically speaking  -  the distinction between will and consciousness is an extremely important one when viewing the daemon (as Tony has conceived it).

A text which I have been reading lately  -  by Chris Hedges,  author of American Facists,  and now a polemical speaker against both fundamentalist Christians and atheists in America  -  points out the contrast most aptly.  In the model which Hedges uses  -  and he draws on Schopenhauer,  Nietzsche,  and Samuel Beckett to make his point  -  will is the ground of life,  and not consciousness.  This leads to a very important and telling conclusion:  Memory   is not what we conceive it to be in the rational mind,  not at all.   For concsiousness is a surface and a pretense;  thus does memory in its authentic state arise from willing alone.  Schopenhauer  -  and Nietzsche after him  -  has said that our true self is "  a secret self,  which knows only willing."  Memory in this sense works secretly,  and comes and goes unbidden by our rational constructs.   It is "not consciouss recollection of life"  says Hedges.  It is rather,  "wisdom".  Hedges asserts that knowledge is the domain of science,  but wisdom belongs to "real memory".

I had often thought,  after "meeting" Tony through email,  that it would be a profound debate,  to question him on whether he believed his "daemon" conception is conscioussness or will.   This feeling of mine increased several-fold when it became clear to me some months ago that Tony had a philosophical partner at his side  ( Le Marcs).   That this question is one in  which the entire debate between science and spirituality hangs,  to my thinking flags it as material for public discourse.

  Memory and will lie in the substrata of life,  and contain secret quasi-alchemical powers,  which consciousness  -  "the parasite of will",  says Schopenhauer  -  misunderstands.    Now that Woodsprite (Di)  has posted on the forum her beautifully written and reasoned critique of Dark Knight,  I think that this debate can extend beyond Tony himself,  and his Philosopher;  it can be taken up on forum,  whether under the categories of philosophy,  consciousenss,  or even  -  if we want to stick with Di's example  -  Itladian film.  For Di has said that she cannot conceive of the character of the Joker as being daemonic,  in the Peakian sense,  for 2 reasons:  1.  He does not recollect Batman's life  2.  He is not the upholder and moral guide of Batman.  These assertions are indeed true,  when viewed through the lens of consciousenss.  However,  when viewed through willing,  I argue that Joker may be seen as both containing true memory and as being an upholder of a kind of morality  ( Nietzschean morality).  And anyone who attended the Democratic National Convention in Denver this week would be hard-pressed to say that Barack Obama does not seem an incarnate example of Schopenhauer's "Will and its Representation"!   In any case,  at some point this discussion ought to be taken up on forum.  I would be interested in hearing others' thoughts on this matter.