Psychic Products

Starting from our minimal certainty — the perception of qqch that changes — we can approach conscious perception not as a product of an independent matter, but as a product of the same unique substance that we have seen generate space, time, and physical laws.

If everything that exists proceeds from a single and identical substance — here named CELA — there can be no subject truly separate from the object, nor any “perceiver” external to reality. What we call consciousness is not a distinct entity, but a particular mode of organization of this same substance. In other words, consciousness is not added onto the universe: it is an emergent property of it, arising from the progressive deployment of CELA along determined axes of complexification.

By applying to the perceptual domain the same method used for physical products, we may suppose that perception itself also emerges from a progressive complexification along certain axes. The following table, although schematic, proposes an outline of this progression: to each new perceptual axis corresponds the emergence of an additional structure of discernment.

Thus understood, conscious perception is a dynamic construction. It results from a series of differential operations, each founded on the recognition of a perceptible difference and organized along a specific axis. These discernments structure both our experience of the external world and that of the internal world: they constitute the mechanisms by which CELA, through us, differentiates itself, explores itself, and recognizes itself.

The progression D¹–D⁸ is ontological in nature, not merely descriptive or functional. It does not represent an operation of the human mind, but the structure of the Real in act. Human cognition merely reflects its functioning, because it is a local expression of it. In other words, ontology generates cognition, not the inverse.

Consciousness (D⁵) is not “produced” in a causal sense, but emerges from the first complete reflexive relation of the CELA field to itself. D⁵ designates the ontological threshold at which perception becomes simultaneously perceived and perceiving — the minimal form of consciousness. It is therefore not an external causality, but a necessary self-configuration of the system when it reaches complete reflexivity.

From this structure, it follows that perception necessarily implies existence, but that the inverse is not true. The perception of perceiving — formulated as (qqch feels qqch) — is composed of elements less complex than the perception of existing — (the being qqch). By grouping the first two elements [(qqch feels) qqch], one shows that perceiving implies being; but to establish the inverse, one would have to decompose the being qqch, which may designate either an object [(feels qqch) qqch] or a subject [(qqch feels) qqch]. Thus, depending on how one combines and recombines the elements of a single perception, one passes from one truth to another, without these truths being immediately reducible to one another. The following table illustrates this combinatorial logic.

By manipulating the basic elements of the perceived (qqch, feels, being), one recovers the principal notions of the ontological discourse universe — existence, consciousness, percipience, and so on. This same method can be applied to other domains of experience: for example, to the adverb “intense” in the thermal domain. One then finds structural correspondences between physical, perceptual, and linguistic notions.

This table highlights these correspondences in the thermal discourse universe. It illustrates how a single schema of complexification can manifest across different orders: the physical (amplitude, pressure, energy…), the psychic (intensity, sensation, relation…), and the linguistic (intense, hot, heating…). These correspondences do not arise from a simple analogy between language and world, but from an ontogenetic homology: language, in its very structure, proceeds from the same movement of self-differentiation as the Real it expresses. In other words, language does not imitate reality — it emerges from it, as a reflexive form of its internal organization.

This convergence suggests that the Real possesses a psycho-physical dual nature, in which the mental and the material are only two expressions of a single fabric of differentiation. But is all terminology truly conditioned by these eight levels? I could give other examples (D2: just ⟶ the just or judge ⟶ judge ⟶ judgable ⟶ justice ⟶ judicial ⟶ judiciously), but the best way I know to demonstrate this remains the use of a neologism. For example:

Semantic gradient of “bob” (D2–D8)

• D2 — bob (sensation)
  Immediate quality: direct qualifier expressing a sensible property or perceived state.
  Example: a bob atmosphere.

• D3 — Bob (object/subject configuration)
  Individual entity: a particular instance embodying the quality “bob”.
  Example: that Bob there manifests the essence of bob.

• D4 — to bob (transition)
  Action / process: the act of manifesting bob, of producing or operating according to this quality.
  Example: he bobs as soon as he speaks.

• D5 — bobbing (relation)
  Ongoing process: that which manifests the quality in a dynamic and interactive manner.
  Example: a bobbing presence.

• D6 — bobism (principle)
  Operative principle: the structuring archetype at the origin of bob-like manifestations.
  Example: bobism is not an ideology, but the internal law of bob.

• D7 — bober (system)
  Organization of the principle: a system operating or an agent structuring the bob principle.
  Example: the bober realizes and systematizes bobism.

• D8 — bobly (context)
  Field of expression: the ontological context or global mode in which bob is expressed.
  Example: to act bobly = to act within the field of bob.

One should not believe that this classification applies only to European languages. The D1 → D8 schema does not rely on the existence of a chain of lexical derivations in a given language, but on a conceptual principle: each perceptual “dimension” adds a level of structuration — intensity, relation, system, context, and so on. In French or English, morphology makes these stages visible through derivations (just → justice → judicial → judiciously). But in isolating or agglutinative languages, these same stages may be expressed by distinct words or by syntactic constructions, without the conceptual logic changing. Thus, the linguistic correspondences proposed here do not have the value of a universal law: they serve as heuristic illustrations of the internal coherence of the model.

For example, in Chinese or Japanese, the progression exists, but it is often realized through lexical composition or through particles and adverbs rather than through suffixation. What varies is the grammatical support, not the logic of passage from one dimensional axis to another.

This model does not assert an a priori truth: it proposes a coherence to be put to the test. If comparative linguistic analysis were to show that this hierarchy does not exist, one would have to conclude that the model describes not the structure of the Real, but only the structure of our thinking about the Real. Its linguistic falsifiability makes it an instrument of verification, not of belief: the more natural languages confirm this progression without exception, the more the axial hypothesis is strengthened.

That said, the eighth level takes on a particular importance for problem solving. For example: you would like to be warmer? Here are the solutions:

The perceptual combinations illustrated here are not recipes, but manifestations of a single organizational structure. Psychophysics thus shows how CELA, in deploying itself, simultaneously produces the form of our experience and the internal logic of the world.

To Go Further

To examine the rigorous foundations of the CdR model:

• image008 — Perceptual hierarchy — internal organization of lived experience
• image009 — Reflexive saturation of perception — structural bound D8
• image010 — Conceptual correspondences — physics, perception, and language
• image011 — Structural paths toward a context — perceptual combinations and lexical domains

These documents include mathematical formalisms, falsifiability criteria, and academic references.