I made a list of various pieces I have read, heard or noted recently about Hyparxis:

  • a state of sensitivity (neither virtual nor actual).
  • subsistence/ existence.
  • one of the four determining conditions.
  • Cyclic, transitive, recurrence, single-valued: between the eternal of all that is potential and the limitation of all that is possible.
  • Ableness to be (a pattern) – can be.
  • ‘rightness’.
  • Each time you return to is, its ableness becomes clearer (you understand more) – this become part of you.
  • Is the condition which holds forms together: that is a cat, that is a dog – hyparxis holds their particular form together in its essential nature so that is can recur from one moment to the next (against entropy).
  • the hyparchic interval’. So, is complementary to the temporal.
  • Creative time is an example of hyparxis but not all hyparxis is creative time.
  • The feel of synchronicity is hyparxis – therefore associated with ‘rightness’.
  • Making the right move – knowing and recognising when you do.
  • The law determining classification is hyparxis.
  • The manifestations of will possible in a given situation.
  • It is the source of substantive meaning (recognised as such). Not the actual meaning but the sense that there is meaning.
  • Is co-terminus of fact-value integration (but the issuing meaning of that integration).

For me, in fact, hyparxis sounds more and more like essential ‘will’ – that which conditions one triadic combination rather than another, but as a pure force rather than a causality.


JGB writes, ‘there is no energy of attention’. In a sense, I understand this. If we take JGB’s account of ‘energies’, indeed, an energy of Attention does not figure. There is Sensitive Energy, Conscious Energy and Creative Energy, but no Attention Energy. So, what is Attention?

I have always taken Attention as being a bridge between Sensitive and Conscious Energy: in a way, Attention is the means by which Sensitive Energy is transformed into Conscious Energy.
One thing that can be said about it is that it does respond to volition: we can choose to give something attention. In this respect, Attention might seem more like a ‘function’.

But, it is also clearly stated that ‘Attention’ is a really a part of ‘Will’. One thing I have concluded in all this reading, is that we have no Will – no individual Will. The only Will we can express is part of the absolute Will. If Attention is a part of this Will, and Attention is susceptible to volition, this would seem to suggest that Will itself can be evoked in some way – under individual ‘choice’.

For me, ‘there is no quality of attention without a soupcon of creative energy’ means that even in that ‘choice’, there is a spark of Will. If we take the argument that Will is really a ‘descent’ from absolute world (I) through to worlds III, VI, XII, XXIV, etc. then, even that ‘choice’ of attention is in someway prompted by a soupcon from an energy ‘above’ the current level of functioning. Basically, Will has a Will: does not predetermine but does prompt – as soupcon. This would be logical from the argument of direction and action of Will. Attention then becomes the manifestation of that soupcon and allows the connection between sensitive and conscious and higher forms of energy.