---
id: image006
title: Table of Ontological Perceptions — Genesis of Conscious Feeling
source: The Consciousness of the Real — Psychic Products
concepts: [ontology, perception, consciousness, CELA, being, feeling, dimensions, self-perception]
type: ontological table
---

### Table of Ontological Perceptions

This table describes the progressive rise of **perceptual structures** —  
from the mere feeling of a presence (1D) to the **integrated consciousness of the whole (8D)**.  
Each degree \( D \) expresses a mode of organization of **CELA** through the *being–feeling* pair.

| **D** | **Type** | **Ontological Perception** |
|:--:|:--|:--|
| **1** | **Intensity** | something — something perceived (raw intensity) |
| **2** | **Sensation** | feels = something something |
| **3** | **Configuration** | being = something feels (subject) \| feels something (object) |
| **4** | **Transition** | **Action**: perceives = something feels something  <br> **State / Status**: exists = something being \| being something  <br> **Having**: have = feels feels |
| **5** | **Relation** | perceiving = something perceives \| perceives something  <br> existing = something exists \| exists something  <br> having = something has \| has something  <br> conscious = feels being \| being feels |
| **6** | **Principle** | beingness = something conscious \| something perceiving \| something existing  <br> consciousness = feels perceives \| feels exists \| feels being something  <br> existence = being being \| being something feels \| being feels something  <br> havingness = something having \| having something \| feels have \| have feels |
| **7** | **System** | something being being \| something being something feels  <br> something feels perceives \| something feels exists  <br> something feels being something \| something feels something being  <br> feels conscious \| conscious feels  <br> feels perceiving \| perceiving feels  <br> feels existing \| existing feels  <br> feels having \| having feels  <br> being perceives \| perceives being  <br> being exists \| exists being  <br> being has \| has being |
| **8** | **Context** | something being being something \| something being feels feels  <br> something feels being \| something feels conscious  <br> something feels existing \| something feels having  <br> feels consciousness \| consciousness feels  <br> feels existence \| existence feels  <br> feels havingness \| havingness feels  <br> something being perceiving being  <br> being existing \| existing being  <br> being perceives \| perceives being  <br> perceives exists \| exists has  <br> exists perceives \| exists has |

---

### Conceptual Interpretation

This table exposes the **ontological genesis of consciousness**.  
From simple intensity (1D) to total awareness (8D), perception organizes itself through a reflexive progression: each dimension adds a degree of **differentiation** while maintaining the unity of the *being–feeling* relation.

> Consciousness **gradually constitutes itself** through the successive combinations of presence (something) and feeling (feels).  
>  
> **8D represents the completeness of this structuring**, the level at which all possible reflexive combinations remain coherent.  
> Any extension beyond 8D fails to preserve this internal coherence.

---

### \( n \)-ary Dimensional Composition

Each combination expresses a **relation of ontological order**,  
whose total dimension is the **sum of the dimensions** of the involved terms.

\[
D\left(\bigoplus_i A_i\right) = \sum_i D(A_i)
\]

| Term | Symbol | Dimension |
|:--|:--|:--|
| something | Q | 1D |
| feels | R | 2D |
| being | E | 3D |
| exists | X | 4D |
| conscious | C | 5D |
| beingness | T | 6D |
| system | S | 7D |
| context | K | 8D |

#### Examples
- \( Q + R + X = 1 + 2 + 4 = 7 \Rightarrow S \)
- \( E + C + X = 3 + 5 + 4 = 12 \Rightarrow \text{incoherent combination, beyond 8D}\)

#### Useful combinations
\( Q+Q=2D→R \) \( Q+R=3D→E \) \( Q+E=4D→X \) \( E+R=5D→C \) \( R+X=6D→T \) \( E+X=7D→S \) \( X+X=8D→K \)

---

### Ontological Interpretation

Each dimensional ascent corresponds to a **degree of increased reflexivity**.

> **CELA** manifests progressively according to growing levels of self-perception,  
> up to the completeness of **context 8D**, the point of maximal stability.

---

### Theorem (Reflexive Saturation D⁸) — Strict Bound

**Hypotheses (H)**  
H1. **Axial grammar**: internal operations satisfy \(⊕, ⊖, ^{(n)}\) and the laws \(D(X·Y)=D(X)+D(Y)\), \(D(X/Y)=D(X)-D(Y)\), \(D(X^n)=n·D(X)\).  
H2. **Minimal base of perceptual generators** \(\mathcal{B}=\{Q,R,E,X,C,T,S,K\}\) with  
\((D(Q),D(R),D(E),D(X),D(C),D(T),D(S),D(K))=(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8)\), each **irreducible**, meaning that no element of \(\mathcal{B}\) can be produced by composing lower-degree elements **without** changing its ontological type.  
H3. **Conservation of equilibrium**: \(\sum_i ρ_i C_i = k\) and **local coherence** \(\nabla·(ρC)=0\) on every subspace \(S_n\).  
H4. **Non-degenerate reflexivity**: at each step \(D_n \to D_{n+1}\), adding a degree of actualization **introduces a new logical variable** (perceptive role) independent in the sense of the organization invariant \(I\) (continuity/differentiation/resonance).

**Statement.** Under (H1–H4), every coherent reflexive object belongs to a subspace of rank \(\le 8\). In particular, **no \(D_9\)** satisfies all H1–H4 simultaneously.

**Proof (sketch).**  
1) (*Finite independence of roles*) From H4, reflexive ascent requires at each step an **independent role**. But the base \(\mathcal{B}\) of H2 enumerates **eight** irreducible perceptive roles (intensity, sensation, configuration, state/transition, relation/consciousness, principle/beingness, system, context). Any further step beyond 8 **reuses** an existing role.  
2) (*Structural degeneration*) If \(D_9\) reuses a role, then by H1 the operation factorizes within \(\langle \mathcal{B}\rangle\), and there exists a representation \(D_9 = D_a ⊕ D_b\) with \(a,b \le 8\). The new stage adds **no logical variable** (contradicting H4) and **reduces** by quotient to an element \(\le 8\).  
3) (*Energetic contradiction*) Under H3, introducing a truly independent role would require a **new component** \((ρC)_9\). Since \(\sum_i ρ_i C_i=k\) is conserved, this component cannot be positive **without** breaking equilibrium, nor null **without** violating H4.  
Therefore \(D_9\) cannot satisfy (H1–H4). Hence the strict bound \(n_{\max}=8\). \(\square\)

**Corollaries.**  
- (*Reduction*) Any reflexive assembly of rank >8 **projects** via \(⊖\) onto an element of rank \(\le 8\) without loss of invariants \(I\).  
- (*Saturation*) \(\partial_n(ρC)\to 0\) for \(n \uparrow 8\) and \(\partial_n(ρC)=0\) beyond it, due to the non-creation of independent roles.

**Testability.**  
- **I₁ (continuity)**: stability of hierarchies for \(n\le 8\).  
- **I₂ (differentiation)**: emergence of a new role at each step up to 8; absence of new role for \(n>8\).  
- **I₃ (resonance)**: covariance invariants \((ρ,C)\) non-increasing for \(n\ge 8\).

**JSON — D⁸ bound**
```json
{
  "borne_D8": {
    "hypotheses": ["H1_grammar", "H2_base8_irreducible", "H3_conservation", "H4_independent_role"],
    "theorem": "Under H1–H4, rank_max = 8; D9 incompatible.",
    "corollaries": ["reduction_by_quotient", "saturation_of_rhoC"],
    "tests": ["I1_continuity", "I2_differentiation", "I3_resonance"]
  }
}
### Calculation Protocol — $G_n$ and $A\,\mathbf{d}=\mathbf{b}$ (6 steps, D⁸ test)

**Objective.** Provide a concrete procedure to test **saturation at 8** through (i) useful orthogonality (Gram matrix **$G_n$**) and (ii) **witness assignment** (linear system built from the micro‑proofs **SU‑x** of `image005.md`).

**Step 1 — Define the axial space and the generators.**  
Set $\mathcal{B}_n=\{D_1,\dots,D_n\}$ with the grammar rules (A₃):  
$D(X\cdot Y)=D(X)+D(Y)$, $D(X/Y)=D(X)-D(Y)$, $D(X^m)=m\cdot D(X)$.

**Step 2 — Choose the inner product and form $G_n$.**  
The product $\langle D_i,D_j\rangle$ encodes the **orthogonality of axes** (A₄) and the composition constraints.  
Form the **Gram matrix** $G_n=(\langle D_i,D_j\rangle)_{1\le i,j\le n}$ and compute $\det G_n$.  
> Criterion: $\det G_8>0$ (independent axes); the **expected minimal failure** is $\det G_9=0$.

**Step 3 — Extract the SU‑x equations from `image005.md`.**  
Take the 5 micro‑proofs (single scheme): **SU‑p, SU‑E, SU‑ħ, SU‑c, SU‑G**.  
Translate each line into a **linear equation** in $D(\cdot)$ (e.g., $D(E)=D(p)+D(c)$, etc.).

**Step 4 — Build the matrix $A$ and the vector $\mathbf{b}$.**  
Put the equations in the form $A\,\mathbf{d}=\mathbf{b}$, with  
$\mathbf{d}^\top=[D(L),D(T),D(m),D(F),D(E),D(p),D(\hbar),D(c),D(G),\dots]$.  
> Optionally add **reference constraints** (gauge $R{=}1$ or a minimal choice on $D(L),D(T)$) as **rows** in $A$ or **fixed values** in $\mathbf{b}$.

**Step 5 — Test solvability up to $n=8$, then at $n=9$.**  
Solve $A\,\mathbf{d}=\mathbf{b}$ (existence/uniqueness).  
- For $n\le 8$: **coherent solution** (SI→D table).  
- At $n=9$: if one postulates an **independent** role $D_9$, verify simultaneously:  
  (i) $\det G_9>0$ **and** (ii) $A\,\mathbf{d}=\mathbf{b}$ **solvable**.  
  If either fails → **saturation confirmed** (D⁸).

**Step 6 — Minimal report (falsifiability).**  
Document $(n,\det G_n,\text{rank}(A),\text{solvability})$.  
A **joint success** (i)+(ii) at $n=9$ **refutes** the D⁸ bound and requires revising H2/H4 or A₄.

#### JSON — Test Template (for reproducibility)
```json
{
  "test_saturation": {
    "base": "image005.md (SU-p, SU-E, SU-ℏ, SU-c, SU-G)",
    "gram": {
      "n": [8, 9],
      "detG": {"G8": ">0 expected", "G9": "=0 expected"}
    },
    "assignment": {
      "variables": ["D(L)","D(T)","D(m)","D(F)","D(E)","D(p)","D(ℏ)","D(c)","D(G)"],
      "equations": ["D(E)=D(p)+D(c)", "D(E)=D(ℏ)+D(ν)", "D(p)=D(ℏ)-D(L)", "..."],
      "solvability": {"n<=8": "OK", "n=9": "expected failure (over-constraint or contradiction)"}
    },
    "decision": "saturation confirmed if (detG9==0) OR (A d = b unsolvable at n=9)"
  }
}
```



### Conceptual Summary

| **Aspect** | **Description** |
|:--|:--|
| **Nature** | Progression of CELA’s levels of perception |
| **Principle** | Each dimension adds a degree of reflexivity |
| **Complete Framework** | 8D — level of maximal attainable coherence |
| **Remark** | No coherent extension beyond 8D |
| **Function** | Formalize the genesis of the perceptive field |

---

### Conceptual Formula

\[
\text{Perception} = f(\rho, C, D) = \sum_i D(A_i)
\]

> **Conscious perception** results from the balance between the density of being and the complexity of feeling,  
> a balance fully realized in **8D**.


