Abstract
This discussion
intends to bring-out a few common sense, logical and metaphysical reasons as to
why it is difficult to believe that the ‘whole’ (universe, or ‘multiverse’) is
a physical phenomenon. It includes its anomalies with the time and space
concepts of science, the fallacy of assuming the universal objective ‘observer’ status for man, and lastly the
very relative mechanism of nature through which the primary ‘self’ of man is
formed, who later assumes the role of the objective ‘observer’ of every thing
under existence, and the existence as a whole too. This discussion also touches
few not yet recognized internal ingredients of human mind that should compel
science and psychology to infer that the final stuff of the world is not matter
and mind, but the new stuff, ‘matter-mind’, in line with the ‘space-time’ stuff
that physics has invented as the new dimension that control realities of the
physical world.
Introduction
The
emergence of the firm belief that universe is PHYSICAL, or matter based, is not
very old. It developed in the aftermath of the undisputed victory of science in
the post enlightenment era over the
Church, and Her spirit
( against
that of matter) dominated old world. Church was the undisputed master of mind
and opinions over the world for many centuries, prior to the victory of science
in the new world.
The clear
distinction of ‘empirical reality’ from the vague flux of the subjective
realities of mind was a proud product of
science .Earlier, subjectivity, objectivity, myth and beliefs were all mixed
up. From this soup of mixed realities of daily life of man, modern science
carved out this distinct realm of unadulterated reality, ie. the empirical; to
mean the realm of experience, observable by the sense organs repeatedly, and
tested and verified by any observer at any time.
Powerful
telescopes have emerged, and distant stars and galaxies have been observed. Man
had self assumed the role and status of an independent, unattached observer
of this realm of no non-sense. The
notion of an all physical world, or even an entire universe, all observable by
man and his instruments has gradually emerged ! Universe had shrunken to the
role of a tiny ‘object’ in the eyes of man.
Of course
there are 'unobservable' distances in the vast space; science accepted. But, if
he had such powerful instruments, all those infinite distances would have been
covered, and man would have measured and marked the boundaries of the entire
universe ! It was here in the history of man and science that the notion of an
all matter physical universe had finally emerged.
The
purpose of this small paper is to list few intellectual paradoxes that might
throw serious doubts on the above concept of such an all matter universe.
1)
The false notion that man can act as an unattached universal observing
subject : When we
use an instrument for measurement or simple observation, it is mandatory that
we must be fully satisfied with the accuracy and ‘sensibility’ of the data that
the instruments provide. When we look through a kaleidoscope , we see a sea of
colors and shapes but they are all
visual illusions. So, what we see with direct sense organs, or with modern
sophisticated instruments may not always give us direct data about what we
observe. It requires special studies and training to make our net realty from
what we observe.
Here, the first instrument that man should carefully
verify is his own self-mechanism, it being the most primary tool of his observation
! Science is very well aware of this
crucial factor more than any one else. It is the dilemma of the observer and
the observed, or that of the subject and object relation.
It was Immanuel Kant, the most influential philosopher of
modern times who had first brought this dilemma into the forefront with a
scientific touch during 18th century. He powerfully argued as well
as showed logical evidences that what our sense organs provide to us are the their
particular (categorized) versions of external reality, and that may not be
those objects in their ‘in-itself’ essence ! Though men of mind among
scientists grasped the seriousness of his valued observation, the man himself
offered them solace; Don’t worry, what ever the eyes see, and ears hear could
be taken for granted, as what those objects in ‘themselves’ metaphysically may
not be of any concern to the practical use of science. Better we ignore such
imaginary realms, as man has got no practical, or known and recognized means of
knowing such ‘in-it self’ realm of reality.
Kant’s studies had brought to surface one important aspect
of the possible falsehood about the
scientific myth and power of the all observing man. Who is this creature who
goes on measuring and calculating the length, breadth and volume of the entire
universe, where he had found himself living one fine morning ? Who is he, and how could he connect himself
‘sensibly’ with the plane where he exists ?
How did his ‘self’, the ‘mind entity’ emerged ? ( There
was not much worry about his physical emergence, as it was a clear physical
event of birth from the mother that every man shares with members of every
other species )
His mind, that too a special one, very different from that
of animals, was his primary CURSE ! Unlike animals, he is bestowed with a very
pronounced realm of mind that runs side by side with his realm of physical ! It
has a world of its own, where ideas, values, myths and pure matters of reason
dwell. In this realm, there exists intellectual compulsions (or drives ) beyond
hunger and procreation. It is in this realm beyond hunger and procreation that
we are here exchanging inputs of our minds about whether universe is physical
or spiritual ! We would dwell a bit deeper about this particular realm at
paradox.no.3 in this discussion.
Many animal species are known to have developed
rudimentary forms of science similar to man’s stuff: like that of the Capuchin
monkeys, who usually keep special stones as a platform for breaking
hard-shelled nuts like coconuts. It is an amazing sight that these monkeys
first place the nut to be cracked on the special stone-platform, and raise
another specially kept ‘hammer’ stone above the head, and smash the nut with
great force ! They repeat the act, like man, till the nut is broken fully. They
are also famous for their act of rolling down heavy stones from the mountain
top, one after the other to scare away, and often injure predator Leopards !
The scenes of other species of monkeys using plant reeds
as straw to draw honey from bee-hives are usual at animal-centric channels in
tv. Our science is phenomenally greater in content and application than those
monkey acts, except that we are cursed with a mind too, that ask more than
necessary questions to ourselves about the degree of exactness and validity of
our acquired knowledge, such as that of the boundary line of our physical
universe ! Monkeys and other animal species are believed to be never troubled
by such extra physical queries and quests !
More over. man is aware of an inner self-too, that
perceives not only his body, but also his MIND, unlike animals. So, he can not
satisfy himself with a much superior science in every respect than that of the
monkeys.
( in fact it is very similar in spirit and subject matter
with that of these animal species, ie., as a tool for making life better and
more and more comfortable !)
This mind of his would go on pressing himself with nagging
existential questions pertaining to realms beyond the physical too. So, man can
not avoid answering deeper questions on his existence for ever, restricting his
studies to physical realm alone.
So the fallacy behind the assumption that universe and
what all that exists might be ‘physical’ has originated from the false belief
that man is a universal, stand alone, independent observer, and what ever that
appear before his sense organs is the realm of reality ! Perhaps the monkeys
also might be keeping a similar absolute belief about their objective knowledge
about the external world - - we do not
know !
Hence, our sense of superiority about our scientific
knowledge could be a species-centered, self-pride guided , empty claims of
exactness that we share only among ourselves ! It could be a community
generated
( oriented ) belief system, gained its strength from our act
of sharing it among our own members !
2)
The problem of infinity (space and time)
Man’s definition of
matter is; ‘that which has mass, and needs space to occupy itself’. That which
occupy space necessarily should have observable and measurable boundaries. Here
if we assume that ‘universe’ is a physical stuff with marked boundaries, it
begs an unavoidable logical answer: what is there outside our universe ?
Probably the concept of ‘multiverse’
might have emerged to solve this plain logical problem. But how can stories of
many universes solve the basic logical issue when the story of even one
physical universe cannot be solved by the classical definitions and notions of
matter ?
One can not remain an integral part of a physical system,
and be its size measuring-observer at
outside at the same time ! If something
is physical with particular boundaries,
it necessarily should have some other objects out side it, so that its ‘location’
concept gains human kind of scientific ‘sense’ ! ( like so much degree east or
west from so and so some other object )
We could observe and measure another heavenly body like moon or mars
while sitting on our planet; but the exercise would become an altogether
different game when it comes to measuring the ‘whole’ that exists ! For
undertaking this exercise, we should be definitely be its ‘external’ observer,
in body and mind, as the measuring act is not done by body alone but mind too. Both
tools are part and parcel of the ‘object’ under measurement, hence a sense-less
proposition.
Our
sense of reason, the ultimate faculty that helps him to know true from false, would murmur that a typical physical
stuff can never be infinite ! Infinity is merely a convenient ‘word’ we had
invented to end the confusion. Practically and logically, we can not imagine
the concept of infinity. It is beyond the limit of our intelligence, and
perceptual abilities.
Wikipedia
refers to the problem of the location and shape of universe as follows:
To speak of "the shape of the universe (at a point in
time)" is ontologically naive from the point of view of special relativity alone: due to the relativity of simultaneity we cannot speak of different points in
space as being "at the same point in time" nor, therefore, of
"the shape of the universe at a point in time". As we all know, we
have now the third dimension of ‘space-time’ too, that insists that time and
space are relative to each other, and not independent and separate dimensions.
Even with this new invention, which it self is too tough for our time and space
trained mind to comprehend, the basic logical difficulty of our sense of reason
to accept the ‘physical’ status of the universe does not decrease.
Infinite time too, as Stephen Hawkins in his best-seller book ‘ a
brief history of time’ admits, has been brought to the realm of science for ‘convenience’
and for making ‘sense’ for its own sake , by slashing it at some point for a
beginning: ‘ One may say that time had a beginning at the big-bang, in the
sense that earlier times simply would not be defined,……(hence) be ignored,
because it would have no observational consequences. . . .the discovery (of
big-bang theory by Edwin Hubble’ in 1929) finally brought the question of the
beginning of the universe into the realm of science’.
Evidently, ignoring TIME prior to the big-bang was for the sake
of convenience by science. It was slashing of reality at some point in time
with the intention of developing a pragmatic knowledge- system around a
particular chosen realm in the middle, cutting off the un-known areas at bottom
and top.
Another veteran of science Alfred North Whitefield remarks: ( his
Harvard business school lectures,chap.V1, part-1) ‘ our knowledge of scientific
laws is woefully defective, and our knowledge of the relevant facts of the
present and the past is scanty in the extreme’.
Despite the veterans of science expressing
their frank stand on the inadequacy of science to answer the question that we
discuss here, the mainstream modern world comprising common men is confident
that science is indeed capable of solving all confusions, and prove one day
that universe and every thing that exists is purely physical. Mankind’s over
dependence on his known external sense-organs, those are designed exclusively
for knowing the physical objects and realities alone, has made mankind
incapable of even conceiving a ‘whole’ which could be non-physical in some
sense. He is
incapable of getting out of the catch of this realm of physical, and conceive
of any other realm of reality other than what he has been exposed to since
birth. But man has other hidden sense organs that tease him with their
revelations and sensations that makes him compelled to look out and search
further for hidden realities and truths about the ‘mystery whole’ where he has
been planted. We will take-up the cause of such hidden internal sense organs in
the next part of this discussion.
Our very ‘sense of disorder’ that we all experience at the
concept of physical universe is the product of such hidden sense organs. From the raw data we receive through the known external
sense organs, such tenets of base ‘disorder’ and necessary ‘order’ about our
knowledge would never have developed in man’s mind !
3) The paradox of MIND:
If a monkey or a dog observe a group of men playing the card game
of Rummy or Bridge, they would never grasp the ‘sense’ involved in the game.
For them it would be random throwing of cards by men, one after the other, in
the category of playful games that members of their species also often indulge in.
We could say that attitude of man looking at the game of life and existence is
like that of those animals: we are yet to grasp the ‘sense’ of the game of life
that we are engaged in for millions of years, chiefly due to lack of
understanding of our mind organ.
We are yet to explain the ‘category’ of mind beyond its physical
angle. For science, mind is a manifestation of matter, a development of matter
at its biological sphere. Though such explanations are absolutely similar to
the mythology ridden explanations of religions, they are not ready to
back-off. Young author ‘Arun Sood’ in
his book ‘life and beyond’ (Amazon.com) compares Darwin’s theory of the origin
of life from a single cell in a pond of water billions of years back, followed
by its developing into the currently existing complex human mind and biological
life forms as follows:
‘It’s as
likely as the example of a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard and assembling
a Boeing 747 aircraft from the materials that were somehow there’
As we have seen
above, the middle sphere of sense, reason and scientific laws that devised by
science during the enlightenment period was the result of the compelling
socio-political atmosphere of that particular period. American
Philosopher Charles Sanders Pierce writes: ( in his essay ‘evolutionary love,
1980) ‘the extra ordinarily favorable reception it ( the evolutionary theory of
Darwin) met with was plainly owing, in large measure, to its ideas being those
toward which the age was favorably disposed, especially, because of the
encouragement it gave to the greed-philosophy’
( of capitalism)
The pure, undiluted urge for truth about nature, life and
existence of the fathers of enlightenment was given way for prioritized technological advancement, and the science’s usefulness
to improve the physical aspects of life ! Science has turned a magic-lamp in
the hands of the new masters of the then world, the industry, and their new
political partners from the peoples class ( democracy )
Mind always belonged to the old notion of man under the sun, the
metaphysical entity, who longed for pure knowledge for its own sake, like the
early day scientists. Today man of mind is a liability for the modern political
establishment as he would be a dangerous freedom seeker, and equally dangerous
for the masters of industry, as he would not be a loyal and subordinating worker ! Hence, killing of mind concept was
the necessity of the day in history.
Hence, matter has won over mind in every field, and it is even at
the verge of total extinction. It is useful only if it is able to produce more
and more advanced technology that would increase profit. Only the quantitative
aspect of mind is relevant today, not its highly qualitative and creative
perspectives ! The science of Psychology also had fallen victim to
the protagonists of the physical principle of the universe.
Has mankind been scientific enough in looking at the mind realm
too in the same spirit and vigor that it had it looked at the matter realm ? Every open minded
human-being could say confidently: NO. This great lapse of modern world has
pushed human life as a whole into great imbalance in knowledge. His knowledge
has become highly exclusive, even to the
level of being superstitious about the matter-centric reality.
To overcome the difficulty of understanding mind in its true
wholesomeness, the new psychologists had invented ‘behavior psychology’, by
adopting the same ‘slashing’ technique of science; carving out only the
‘measurable’ aspects of human behavior for ‘objective’ studies in psychology.
The bottom and top has been ignored for convenience.
How can we understand the stuff of human mind with utmost
scientific spirit, and improve our knowledge of existence as whole ?
Scientific spirit is the spirit of man to understand truth, truth
alone, and nothing else. In order to be genuinely on this path of our enquiry,
one is supposed to discard all previous knowledge that might cloud one’s
observation and inferences.
In this genuine attempt here to understand mind and the self of
man who carry the mind, every one of you is appealed to first get off his existing notions self,
and then look at the actual process of man’s acquiring a mind, and his
self-hood for the first time in his life, with a totally blank mind.
It is assumed here that before we had our existing mind, and prior
to the start of this discussion, there always existed a human community where
we all had been born into. This exercise is aimed at looking into the actual
process by which every one of us had
acquired our first mind, and our sense of selves. This is an attempt to look at
mind as an actual external object, as prescribed under scientific spirit.
For this exercise, one must first look at new born babies as to
how they show signs of a mind at the first instance, and its signs of acquiring
a self-hood of its own. For a while we should forget the brain and neurons as
the physical base of mind. The rationale behind this appeal to ignore the brain
stuff for the moment is explained here
with the analogy of a study for understanding the process of male babies acquiring their youth stage and
man-hood. Though the sexual organs of a new born baby are there in the body
from birth, it would take long years of growth and development for them to make
the baby a youth, and give him his full male-hood. Similarly, let us ignore the
brain and the neurons for the time being, likening them to the baby’s
rudimentary sexual organs at the time of birth here. Like the undeveloped
sexual organs of the baby, the brain and neurons of the baby at the birth too
are rudimentary physical buds for future
development.
Second pre-condition for this simple scientific exercise is to
keep the central premise intact that NATURE has her set plan for the
development of the body as well as mind in due course. Every branch of science
keeps this base premise unaltered, be it be physics or medicine. Physics is
simply an attempt to discover nature’s laws, and alter it in permissible ways,
for conducting life on earth with more comfort. Similarly, science of medicine
is also following the same principle. It simply aid the natural process of
healing, while intervening at times in the body functioning In permissible
ways, like replacing the natural parts with artificial parts etc.
If we suggest here that new born babies are born only with the
physically undeveloped buds of the mind,
( ie. rudimentary brain apparatus ) but
NOT with the actual mind, no scientific laws would be broken. Through the sense
organs, which are open windows towards the external world, baby gets its first
signals like its mother’s touch, her sound, the taste of breast-milk, the smell
of the nipples, and many other such similar sensations every day. If we suggest
that it is these first sensations that give rise to the baby’s mind initially in
its non-physiological meaning and sense, again no scientific sense would be
breached.
Every sense organ of the baby is opened towards the external
world. We are going to infer here that even before becoming aware of its own
self, what it first gets to know is the external: its mother as the first
‘other’ entity, the first other person. When she behaves before the baby as if
it is an entity other than her, the baby’s mind imprints its first image of its
own self-hood !
Now the baby’s mind has multiple impressions of sense data, that
of touch, smell, sight and sound, and most centrally and importantly, the
impression of its own entity in the line of ‘others’ around it ! I too am a
entity like the ones that I see around
me ! Yes, I am something real, because
others around me are real ! They treat me as something separate from them ! Others
perceive me as real, so I am ! My
reality is reiterated and affirmed primarily because of my assurance that you
perceive me as some thing real ! You appear
as something real before me , and on the same principle, I too am real ! The
tussle between illusion and realty always haunted every notion of self and
thought throughout philosophy. What is the proof that I am real, and what I
experience is real ? When we accept
‘self’ and mind on the above ‘empirical’ lines, such tussles should come to an
end.
Here we may perhaps have to review the painstaking exercise undertaken by the great philosopher Descartes
to explain mind and self by his famous tenet : ‘ I think, so I am’. Plainly the
certainty of one’s reality on the basis of the evidence of him as an external
reality to others around him, is far more profound a theory. Descartes had
based it on the certainty of man’s thinking process, a process within man, with
no objective, third party supportive evidence. In short, we feel the reality of
ourselves primarily on the strength of the certainty as objects in other’s eyes
! If what I observe in the world with my sense organs are real, I too am real.
The central principle behind the certainty of our realities is, that they are
‘shareable’ among ourselves. What I only experience is far less real than what
we all collectively experience. The first kind of reality is ‘subjective’ and
the second is ‘objective’. If one look at the above principle with extreme
attention, the paradox of man’s ‘self’ would once and for all. Yes, it is an
objective reality in the above sense. What all it produce could be brought into
the scientific realm once we recognize and accept all such inputs.
This is the story of the synthetic creature-man, who gained his
self hood based exclusively on the un-related external sense data that later on
developed into his full-grown mind mechanism, with a lot more inputs coming
from various internal and external sources.
When the baby grows-up, he see, smell, touch and hear. He has
a lot more materials now in his mind.
Now he can play around with these images in mind, that is, THINKING. Yes,
thinking is nothing but playing around with the various mind materials. Next in
this discussion we are going to see what these other mind materials are
Mind materials other than external sense inputs
The self
Classical philosophy and even science believes that there is
nothing in the mind except that the senses provide. The rest everything it
produces is with the help of his thinking and reasoning prowess ! This is a
very fallacious stand needing urgent review. Mind gets its major inputs from
other, not yet recognized internal sources, not exactly ‘a priori’,
(before experience) but after the
formation of the ‘self’ of man ( a process that involves man’s undergoing innumerable experiences, which is explained
in detail below) and when it is ready for more developed emotional and
intellectual experiences. The simple use of the term ‘a priori’ does not
clarify the question ‘prior to experience of whom?. The variable of the unique
‘self’ of man that first generate from experience is not taken into
consideration while coining the term ‘a priori’. When the self of man is fully developed, the
not yet recognized internal inputs to mind, ie. emotions and drives, and the
‘sense of reason’ aid him with some basic tenets of life, free of his
pre-experiences. He is now a unique ‘aggregate’ of experiences, and an
integrated ENTITY called a ‘self’.
The central aspect of how the ‘self’ of man takes birth is still a
grey area in psychology. When one goes through the existing literature on
‘self’, there is no mention of how does a ‘self’ gets formed’ for the first
time, and how does it develop. The theories of Kohut etc.( the father of self
psychology ) describes various forms (
narcissistic, imago etc.) that the
‘self’ assumes, but not any reference to the foundational logical or
metaphysical principles of its origin.
Other than external sense inputs, the baby also experience inputs
that directly enter mind, such as fear of loneliness, longing for mother,
hunger, sensation of excretions, aversions to certain external stimuli etc, ie.
both physical as well as emotional/instinctual inputs. These inputs increase
day by day, and the self-hood of the baby gets enriched with the OWNERSHIP of
it all. A new ‘self’ has arrived in the world !
The Indian God man Osho describes the above process in his book, ‘
Beyond the frontiers of mind’ (Rajneesh,1974,p.8,para.3,chap.1))
: “when
a child is born, the first thing he becomes aware is not him self; his eyes are
opened out-wards, the hands touch others, ears listen to others…all these
senses open outwards…the ego is an accumulated phenomenon, a bye product of
living with others”.
If modern world
realize the above plain common sense fact about man’s ‘self’ that engages in
scientific and philosophic pursuits, all the confusions about ‘consciousness’
to metaphysics would come down to half.
Here we have seen the
central item that enters mind, or gets integrated into the mind after the birth
of the human baby, the SELF of man, or what Freud had very rightly coined, the
EGO. Even before the birth while in the
womb, the baby’s mind might be registering the fetus’s peculiar sense
information in the mind, but it is irrelevant to the chief theme of this
discussion. The process of self making happens after the new entity encounters its
‘others’ around him.
There is nothing
before man for comparison of the above highly imaginative and creative idea of
nature ( no syllogism hence possible-It should be an ‘atomic’ proposition,
something that man’s hidden internal sense organs directly perceives !) that helped in the ‘origin’ of independent
SELVES: these selves own-up responsibility for their actions, and experience
total separateness from everything else in the world at times. It often tends
to assume that whatever is there other than him in the world is originated in
his mind as thoughts. ( solipsism) and an infinite such other thought forms as
one could imagine. Psychologists are aware of many such neurotic patterns of
assumption that often are far distant from the much required ‘sense’ of reality
that the ‘self’ (or EGO ) should necessarily have, to be sane. Modern
psychology defines that the most central aspect of this ‘sanity’ is one’s
ability to adjust oneself with the social reality around. The new man should be
able to manage his relation with others healthy and normal.
But all these peculiar
characteristics of human self does not alter the fundamental existential
reality about it, that ‘selves’ are born and living after making ‘others’
around them as the reference point for its own sense of reality.
Why
‘self’ is formed in the above fashion ? The metaphysical explanation for
duality.
Some of you may wonder
why our discussion wanders into areas irrelevant to the subject matter of the
authenticity of ‘physical’ nature of our universe ! As we have seen from what
we have discussed above, every event of our perception and conclusion is a
unique synergy between our self and the external object. Why scientific men
stick on with their dogma that universe is physical would be answered, or at
least explained once we have a deep understanding on our ‘self’ mechanism, and
our relation making with our objects, including the ‘whole’, the world and
universe.
The plain metaphysical
or common sense fact is that nothing gains the status of reality until it gets
perceived by an other entity with a mind. Bishop Berkeley, when he said it,
people did not understand the real sense in which he might have meant it. But
as we have seen above in the mother-child example, the new born baby would
never have his sense of self until and unless it recognized its separateness from
its mother and ‘others’ around him. His self was born when others looked at him
as a separate entity, and when such ‘look’ reiterated his reality. A rose is an
entity that lives in man’s mind in a particular way. The same object Rose has
different entity and mental images other perceiving subjects, like the honey
sucking bees and humming birds. Every object in existence gains its entity, or
gets its entity defined, only when other external entities perceive it in
different forms !
No need of jumping with the usual question, ‘
Is physical reality then an illusion ?’ , and kick a mile-stone and show the
bleeding thump to the world like Dr. Johnson had done once, to prove the
falsity of the above fact. It is only to
mean that nothing in existence can have an identity independent, and
‘in-itself’ and un-attached reality that is FREE of the perceiving mechanism of
some or other subjects ! It is obvious and certain that when nature had
conceived the idea of objects in existence, it also had simultaneously conceived
its corresponding subjects also for whom, or amongst the both, the drama of
subject-object synergy would take place ! Look at WATER for example; when water
was designed as an object in the world, nature must have in Her mind its
multiple utility for the living beings in world. Or AIR for another example. As
Cosmologists now unanimously agree, when science look at the primordial atom
and nucleus, its future development into life forms had very carefully and
accurately embedded in its design ! Fully evolved life was in the inception
stage plans of nature.
What we observe as physical reality here on
the planet earth, and within our perceiving range, are only ‘good-to-mankind
only’ particular ‘synergy’- between our mind, our stage of knowledge in
this age, and part of the universe that falls under the range of our probing
mechanism. Our world is limited to what we know. There could be millions of
heavenly bodies that exist at remotest corners of the cosmos that we are still
not aware of. For us, they are non-existent. For many stages in the past,
millions of men lived and died with such believes that earth was flat and
starts were fixed objects in the sky.
So, ‘physical’ is only
a particular category of our experience that we have imposed upon nature, thanks
to our particular way of knowing it and defining such categories of reality by our synthetic mind.
When we looked at the
sub-atomic particle world to find out the least building block of the physical
reality, our scientists got real jolt ! Many a particles that appeared a wave
to the probing instrument for the moment suddenly turned a particle the next
moment ! Two similar particle joined together at times and produced a new
particle in the process. It was all confusion for man’s mind, a mad dance denoting
no sense !
Therefore, what ever
exists do so only as objects in the mind of some or other subjects, and there
appears no reason to believe that every object should be having an IN-ITSELF,
final reality about it. Things and realities, it seems, are there in existence,
to gain their realities in synergy with some or other perceiving minds
in the scheme of existence. For this central existential scheme- DUALITY- the
scheme of having OBJECTS at one end, and MINDS at other end, was essential. Not
only minds, but its OWNERS too, some or other entities with their SELF
mechanism intact !
It could only be a
blind belief that the ‘whole’ would be a physical entity after all, a typical
object of our external senses. Such a belief can not be different from the
belief of religious people that a God had created the universe and maintaining
it, under strict logical categorization. Both are beliefs of the same category,
as evidences are not strictly empirical.
The scientists of mind
should consider the possibility of declaring MATTER-MIND as a new dimension of
the existence, like relativity theorists had found the new dimension of
SPACE-TIME to explain newer realities observed by them in the universe ! We have seen clearly that matter is NOT something the mind can
ever disintegrate into independently observable external objects in the
sub-atomic particle world experiments. Therefore, it would only make good sense
to declare the stuff of the world and existence ‘mind-matter’, (NOT mind, and
matter ) to end the riddle.
What ever we have seen
above were common sense explanations about the rational of mind, self, and the
naked feature of what we call the ‘solid reality’ of matter.
Mind
materials other than sense inputs- 2, Sense or ‘ORDER content
(ie. reason)
We
have seen above the central ingredient of the mind, or the OWNER of the
mind-SELF- under whom mind operates. Mind does not, or can not treat ‘self’ as
different from itself, as its only an inorganic mechanism, or phenomenon. But
‘self’ is capable of having ‘consciousness’ of itself, independent of mind. Its
evidence is this very activity of this author’s writing about mind and self,
and millions of similar examples other selves in the world does with it every
moment.
Here
we are attempting to identify another prime ingredient of mind, that is
integral and central for its very working. It is the ingredient of ‘sense’ or
Reason, or the category of ‘order’ in the mind.
Kant,
the most influential of modern philosophers thought Reason is a fixed
pre-attachment to mind that process every sense datum into some or other
sensible ‘categories’ and supply to mind. We may have to differ with the great
man here, with regard to the genus and function of the human faculty of reason,
with great respect for him duly reserved for him for the never heard
understanding he had contributed to mankind about the working of mind !
If
mind had only what senses have contributed into it, in whatever creative ways
the self process it, it can not produce any miracle out of it, even if we take
into consideration the ‘categorization’ of them into ‘sensible knowledge’ forms
that Kant had alleged. 1+1 can not ever produce the sum of other than 2 if some
other hidden ingredients had cropped during the summing up process !
Kant
had argued in his ‘critique of pure reason’ that ‘ pure reason’ is knowledge
that does not come through our senses but is independent of all sense
experience; knowledge belonging to us by he inherent nature and structure of
the mind’ .( Will Durant, book ‘The story of philosophy’, chap.Kant,, p. 265)
He doubted the ability of mind to create any variety of such ‘pure’ knowledge,
except reason’s above referred inherent structural design to transform the
sense data into sensible form of knowledge.
Here,
we are attempting to show Reason is a very different perspective, in its two
distinct functions, first as an internal organ that detects the ‘sense’ , or
ORDER content between any chosen two or mind data, and second, as a rare
faculty that could really produce new mind-data by splitting every given ray of
thought or idea into all its sub-data, creative combinations, and never known
possibilities !
Let
us elaborate. The sense gathered data enters mind, in categorized form
(
acknowledging Kant’s stand) to aid efficient survival of the self, including
the ‘categorical imperative’, ie. ethics and morals, which the great man
thought is inherent in the structure of mind making such survival value ridden
too. But what distinguishing human kind from animals is his very special faculty
of sensing the ORDER content between many of the past data stored in the mind
with many of newer observations, and in this process, producing fresh
relations. In Newton
knowledge
! More central was reason’s primary function: its NOT yet recognized or
identified ‘sense organ’ like function, that detects the new ( not yet identified
and recognized by the mainstream world) existential category of ORDER, or plain
‘sense’. We should agree that animals also share this sensing of ‘sense’ (
order) function in rudimentary forms, but man shares it with nature in an
unprecedented way, that it seems quite possible that he could even ‘sense’
tenets of ultimate forms of ORDER ( sense ) that unites the whole plan of
existence !
Science
should not have any objection when we accept this ingredient of the ‘sense’
that does not come from the external sense organs as another prime material in
the mind. For the OWNER of the mind, this mystery sense organ of ORDER is the
chief weapon that makes his life meaningful and sense filled ! Man can not
think of any other tenet of true and false other than what his sense of reason
provides. So it make plain sense to recognize the ‘sensing’ of the ‘order’
function as the chief theme of our
faculty of reason. It is with this very miraculous faculty that this writer has
found this proposition ! For that every past and existing unique scientific and
philosophic discoveries was aided by this mystery sense organ of ORDER.
Though
we have many other similar not yet recognized inputs to mind like emotions and
‘drives’ (or urges) of man, this is not a proper platform to elaborate it.
The
two central items of mind, ie the SELF and REASON was so crucial in doubting
the mere PHYSICAL status of world and existence, hence we have included them in
the discussion. It is this newly recognized sense organ of plain reason that
constantly murmurs that world and existence can not ever be physical and mater
centric. Even after going through all the plain evidences above, if science and
its fanatic followers still want to belief that world and existence is
matter-centric, we have no option but to classify them with the similar beliefs
of religious fanatics, whose mind usually can not open towards anything but
what is there recorded in the Holy-books.
In
summary, it becomes clear from the above long discourse that science’s conclusion
about ‘matter-centric’ nature of the whole was its ignorance of, or contempt
towards man’s un-recognized, hidden internal faculties that aid and adds up his
cognition. Other than the objects and events in the world that his external
sense organs perceive, there are innumerous internal objects and events that
his un-recognized internal sense organs perceive; take for example his emotions
like anger, love and apathy. They are real objects man experience distinctly
and clearly like what his eyes see and ears hear from the external world. Take
the other example of linguistic concepts those are not names of physical
objects; like science, phenomenology, space, time, eternity, cruelty etc - - -
upon hearing these purely conceptual objects, mind grasps them and make sense
of them.
In
fact, more than the physical objects and events, what constitutes more towards
making the lives of men are these ‘conceptual objects’. The role of similar
internal faculties( like the sense organ of reason referred above ) that provide
the much central notion of ‘sense’ to whatever we grasp and accept as true, are
also to be taken into serious consideration; they are more fundamental and
decisive in constituting our realities and truths than the mere perceptions by
our external sense organs. In other words, in the matter of judging the degree
of reality of anything, more than the role of our external sense organs, the
role of our internal faculties is more relevant and central. Hence, it is high
time that we re-define our concept and rule of ‘empirical’; empirical means the
quality of the object or event to be ‘experienced’. Man often experience clear
‘doubt’ about the exclusive physical nature of the whole, and we have listed
many evidences in this paper that say against the above dogma. It is the
professional responsibility of science who exclusively stands for the ‘spirit’
of enquiry, to accept the above evidences and decide to re-check the dogma
whether the ‘whole’ could ever be matter-centric ?
Authored
by : Abraham J.Palakudy,
Founder
secretary
www.conscienceofthesociety.com
( a philosophic non-profit engaged in freelance research on mind, reason, self
and reality)
contact
us; ajoseph1@rediffmail.com, or conscienceofthesociety@hotmail.com
Twitter: voice of philosophy@jopan1
Twitter: voice of philosophy@jopan1
No comments:
Post a Comment