Tuesday, November 24, 2020

Possible existential scheme

There are numerous speculations today as to what existence is. These speculations are chiefly in the form of complex philosophic terminologies. We are familiar with materialistic monismtype identity theorytoken identity theoryfunctionalismreductive physicalismnonreductive physicalismeliminative materialismanomalous monismproperty dualismepiphenomenalism, emergence, etc 

Like political parties, philosophers and scientists fall behind one of these theories and create numerous academic papers and books every day. There are numerous sub-themes also like consciousness, panpsychism, etc wherein many other philosophers fall-in under various sub-theories. Academy philosophy is totally engrossed in creating numerous papers every day, on one of these multiple themes. All such theories are speculative in base character. To escape this accusation,  science has adopted the method of experiments and evidence. But we know, hypotheses are formed first by this method and then experiments are conducted to 'exemplify' the hypotheses. A veteran of Western knowledge, Alfred North Whitehead had sarcastically written on the method of the experiment, that 'it is a mode of cooking evidence to exemplify the theory in hand'. 

Are we, humans, expected to know such a scheme of existence? If yes, how?

Why judge that we are here simply to be in life blindly, not bestowed with the ability to understand who we are and why we are here? It is a basic judgment on human life. We should very carefully handle it.

The crucial role of the hidden sense organ of humans that is instrumental in 'sensing' the logic behind the evidence or arguments, or that between arguments and the point that it attempts to prove, is yet to be found and recognized by our acclaimed knowledge system. The following blog link will introduce this faculty to the readers: 


The following link might provide more, additional details on the subject: https://isreasonasenseorgan.blogspot.com/2018/11/is-mans-faculty-of-reason-internal.html

We must recognize that what our sense organs provide us constitute the base of our knowledge. These inputs play a crucial role in making up our knowledge system, so epistemology. Love to share with my readers, a paper on the important role of sense faculties in creating our knowledge:


When one looks at life and own 'sense of self'', freeing himself/ herself from its vicious catch, he/she comes across the following existential system or the mechanism of having own self with all our 'given' such above mentioned faculty for knowing it.  

1. Can we adopt two different stands towards life and existence? 

We know now that we can adopt two different intellectual stands towards life and existence; when we blindly fall victims of our GIVEN bodily and intellectual traits and look at life from such a stand, and when we are well aware of these traits and then look at life and existence.

While we were animals-like, living with them like one of them, we were total slaves of our bodily and emotional traits. We however realized it, and then we departed from this way of our animal brothers. Humans started living far away from the animal kingdom, as a special, advanced species. 

So, two kinds of leading life are quite possible and proven reality.

2. Can we use our bodily and emotional systems as our own and be proud of them?

When we realize that our bodily and emotional traits are simply 'given', but highly chosen 'creatively' by nature, which means these were not a natural result of the PHYSICALITY, we tend to be extremely humble and selfless. Why should one be proud of something that he doesn't own? Why should one create or produce something like a SCIENCE staying within this synthetic 'sense of self; and create KNOWLEDGE? When the very medium itself is synthetic, how could what it produces become authentic? Is the above referred is a major fault of our science?

When we reach some kind of intellectual maturity, we ultimately realize that our sense of self is also a given phenomenon. Then we realize that our sense of selves was emerged out of a simple but a certain law, a consciously schemed way that existence has devised to achieve her purpose. We were 'falsely' feeling its sense of ownership. But while living in life, in the world, one can't disown it during its tenure, as all others around one also own it and leading life as if some 'he' or 'she'. So, he/she also has to own it and live on. 

Descartes' principle was unfortunately wrong.( I think, so I am) What seems true is, 'you are, hence I am'. 

The following paper might offer more details on this new proposition: 


3.What Logic must have been there behind having humans in life?  

What would have been the sensible reason, or the Logic for Nature to devise such a scheme for our 'sense of selves'? Can we explain it under the principle of the scientific method, of having a sensible, logical explanation for what we claim? Of course, we have a brain-related system of science. But the question of whether thought originates first or the neuron firing is quite difficult to answer. If this could be answered, it will answer the question of whether the brain originates thought or they originate first from non-brain, purely physical sources.

We now know, that humans are bestowed with a faculty to 'sense' or detect the LOGIC of any explanation, with or without the support of experiments, the faculty of Reason. It senses the ORDER or the SENSE content of explanations, or even the conclusion of experiments when minds are kept open and receptive to new knowledge. 

What must be the most sensible cause/explanation for having humans and numerous other living species and inorganic objects in existence?  They all certainly have PHYSICAL as an end substance. But thousands of items and events around us, in the living realm as well as the inorganic realm that obviously exhibit strong evidence of CREATIVE CHOICES for their particular model of being, working principle, etc defy all our notions of us and our science, of their being a fully physical phenomenon. That all such creative choice elements we observe have resulted from the need for more successful survival. 

Let us take the example of unimaginably different models of living species around us, say, cats, dogs, cockroaches, fishes, birds of thousands of shape, vice, size of peaks, and feeding habits. The system of feelers of insects could have been in thousands of other designs; why their given design was the ultimate for survival purpose? An element of CREATIVE CHOICES is evident in each case.  Observe the thousands of shapes of tree leaves. What was the need for such variety and choices? It will be illogical to attribute the cause behind it as successful survival needs. What about our own case; the shape, location, and modes of our having sex? Men as well as that of women? The swaying desire, orgasm, periods of women, childbirth, love the mothers feel towards their babies, husbands, the phenomenon of milking, etc? There could have been thousands of other designs, ways, shapes, etc for the shape, location, way of having sex, etc for us and animals. Yes, an element of creative choices can't be ignored in every case. 

Though the idea of a creator, divine God may not be right, our inborn faculty of SENSE can never overlook the possibility of some kind of a mind and intelligence behind existence and all its varieties. In the name of science, a kind of dogma for physicalism, we can't ignore all the above-mentioned elements of CREATIVE CHOICES in existence. 

4.The inevitable need for a sense of REALITY for being in existence 

We now know that ' to be' means to be known. We all suffer from an inevitable need ' to be'. To be, means, to be known by some others. Our inescapable need for self-expression is nothing but our existential need, 'to be'. By self-expression, we are trying 'to be'.

I become or feel like someone because of the identity given to me by some others. I certainly am someone, but if I am not seen, heard, and recognized the way I am by some others, I always remain invisible and VOID. In LOVE relation, more than the sexual desire, there is a sure element of being of central importance in some other's mind. In love relation, both partners feel about each other as the most important. In other words, I feel especially alive, important, and special in my partner's mind. Both share the body of each other, a kind of ultimate expression of selves. At the same time, they keep the other too in the mind, at a central place, thus achieving the most important existential need; TO BE. 

So, if existence has devised the above scheme for all living beings for achieving the need of TO BE, it compels us to infer, that for existence too, her central purpose behind scheming life was to create KNOWING ENTITIES who could be knowing her one day. We know that she is invisible because we do not know her. 

 5.Why there are numerous inorganic objects, living species of animals and plants around us in existence?  

If developing KNOWING beings was the sole goal of existence, why she opted to have inorganic objects and different species of animals and plants also in existence? It is a very natural question. 

Let us attempt to sensibly assume the logic of existence behind the above step. 

If developing knowing beings was her sole goal, why she opted to have us with nose, chest, legs, hands, hair, etc? Our sexual organs were simply organs for urination up to our ages of maturity. Then these organs started performing two different purposes; urination as well as sex. It is clear that there were instances or elements of many 'creative choices' here. Some great imagination might have been behind scheming such feats. Physicalists attributed such developments to the smart needs of evolution and survival. But it might not require much intelligence to infer, which stand has more sense here. 

Existence seems to have devised life perfectly for the living beings, with for one, all other beings and things around one as a variety of objects, and acts of these objects constituting events for it to participate. For each, others around it turning up as WORLD, full of items and events! 

6. So, what kind of an overall 'predilection' existence might be having towards the world and its living and non-living objects?

One thing becomes clear here. More than choosing between God or Physicalism, human intelligence has a greater task here. It is about understanding the overall PREDILECTION of the phenomenon of existence. It is a greater question of importance.  

We are under the influence of either a God-like figure or a cold and statistical entity like Physics. We are being guided by some or other force than the above two; our birth, our emotional predisposition, our death, etc are more the result of such a PREDILECTION than the question of  God/ PHYSICAL substance behind it. Aren't the above-referred features of our life, more the result of such a PREDILECTION than the statistical fact of a God or physicalism? Yes, questions on existence is more a question on the PREDILECTION of her, than who is behind it? 

The above-observed elements of CREATIVE CHOICES can't be attributed to a dead, dump and mute, physicality. They can't be attributed to a God, who is the embodiment of love and care too, as analyzed in the following paper: 


What might be preventing the present-day world from altering her existing word view?

We have seen above that the present-day world is either under the influence of science or that of various religions. A good percentage believes such knowledge is beyond our intellectual power- agnostics. 

All the above three flags give, a kind of strong personal identity to men and women of today. The economic system of capitalism especially made the life of humans today, centered around the economic angle, ie, exclusively around fending for one's food, housing, and clothes. There is no purpose in life except to live it; this seems the message of capitalism. 

Capitalistic values and lessons have freely influx into religious organizations. They seem to give more importance to the economic existence of the organizations than spreading the vital messages of their founders or the spiritual messages they are supposed to spread.  

Our mother institution of knowledge, science, with such a high reputation and following, seems no different from religions in matters of principle. They keep a base UNIVERSAL that everything that exists is PHYSICAL. This base premise is influencing all her rest findings.  Our world gives central relevance to logic, but this important feature of it, the relevance of the base UNIVERSAL PREMISE she keeps, is not recognized by her yet. 

Love to share with the readers, a study on the central place of such UNIVERSALS in our logical system: 


All the above are reasons for our continuing with our very fallacious knowledge system.

The premises of science today are so fanatic and orthodox like that of religions. Its followers are so confident about and enthusiastic about her achievements and method, that no amount of criticism is going to make any effect!

Existence seems to be far away from humankind's existing belief-systems, a live phenomenon, but our intellectual attention is yet to fall upon this new way of thinking.  

Authored by: Abraham J.Palakudy

He is an independent philosophy, metaphysics, and seeker/researcher of knowledge. 

His other blogs are at link: https://www.blogger.com/profile/14249415589712707293

He tweets by the name: Voice of philosohy@jopan1

Monday, July 27, 2020

Why we, humans, get so accustomed with the way we live, with our cultures, self identities etc?

This small paper tries to analyse how, or on what Logic Nature have devised/schemed our lives, our personal lives as well as our social and economic institutions the way it was, and the way it is today.

Had she any role in our such routines? What caused our lives to be the way we lead it? Wasn't any alternative way possible? Our heart or sexual organs could have been in thousands of other designs and models, so some kind of 'creative choices' of designs and models are clearly evident. Dump and mute 'physical matter' (version of science) could not have been able to chose any particular design and model. There is evidently great fallacies in the conclusions of the strict followers of PHYSICALISM. Yes, nature or existence certainly had her hand behind scheming our lives and the way we lead it.

This paper was so necessary today as we exclusively spend our lives as if its core meaning has been constituted by us, by our intelligence and wisdom. Most of our philosophies and science also support such a view. We believe, history helped us to develop this better way of leading life, ages after ages. Our brain adapts such history-earned improvements and hence we have our present way of civilization, institutions and personalities.We are certainly ignorant that our 'sense of self' it self is a product of nature,or part of her scheme behind giving our particular experience of life.

Though we get so comfortable with the model in which our markets are formed and their functioning, the products we buy and use, what we post in our social media outlets, the way our governments rule us etc, the wise must see the hands of nature or existence behind all the above phenomena. But why we get so comfortable with the way we live? Why we develop own belief systems for our science, religions and philosophy? Why we are not questioning the way we form such belief systems?

Is human life,  as Darwin and others speculated, that an affair of the survival of the fittest? Should everyone strive to make own life, the best possible biological, economic and personal event? Is it an affair that our FREEWILL decides exclusively? If FREEWILL was the deciding factor, why many of us encounter and suffer diseases, accidents, traumatic events in life, untimely deaths, bodily defects etc? Were they not careful enough, less smart/adaptable in leading life? If there were any relation to own smartness, or they were less fit for survival etc, how can we explain inherited diseases? That is, someone being born with deadly diseases and body or mind-defects with NO fault of their own?

We know that when we devise an instrument to observe any physical event in universe, we make it very sure, what the instrument gives us is the most accurate data, better than our naked eyes and other sense organs. It is clear that we should be very, very careful about the information our observing tools provide us, as such data are going to define our knowledge. Hence, this study is so vital. What kind of observers are we? Do we know ourselves the way scientists know their probing instruments?

It is certain that despite all our great scientific discoveries and inventions, we have not yet learned much about the primary instrument with which we make these discoveries and inventions, that is, we ourselves. We have been not serious about studying us, the ONTOLOGY factor of who we are. We simply assumed that, our intelligence can be independent to judge and arrive at conclusions about our life and whatever we observe in nature around us. Wasn't like the judgments and conclusions of  an island of born-blind people who judge that there is nothing like SIGHT for humans? There was a fictional movie around the theme of an island with born-blind people, in one of the regional languages of India ( Malayalam)

Why we should analyse the WHY questions of life and its various sub-elements in life? 

1. Reason number one is what was given in the last paragraphs above; like the way we are careful about the tools we use for our scientific observations, we need to be very,very careful about with what sensory and other tools with which we observe life. We know that, like our other body parts, heart, kidneys, lungs, eyes and ears, our observing SELVES also was 'GIVEN' to us.We had no role in scheming or devising them. We got it ready made. If heart and kidneys have very peculiar working principles , why our observing SELF mechanism doesn't have one? If so, there would be fixed ways we get information through it! Following is a proposition/observation, how our 'sense of self' mechanism must have been formed:


This mechanism may be similar to how our sex organs develop into those ones when we attain age and maturity. When we were born and till we were children, they were simply used for urinating purpose. But when we got to age, these urinating organs got ready to be used as sexual organs too! Perhaps 'our sense of self' also got matured the same way as and when we grew up, under a well thought out plan.

The following inborn physical and emotional DRIVES too have started acting upon us and our behavior at appropriate ages:


If the above 'sense of self' mechanism and the inborn drives we were born with are the cause of our particular behavior such as the 'singularity each of us experience about ourselves, our excessive urge to look after ourselves, self-express and withstand pressure and negative environment, why other moral and positive living lessons created by us/our brains need to be attributed to them? Like our body is equipped with a natural immune system that fights off external health enemies, isn't our mind-system also equally equipped with inborn energies to look after ourselves in every negative conditions?. But better we remember, our health enemies and mind enemies might have been nature created, perhaps to equip our life in a certain way as she deemed fit. In short, aren't we simply like Androids, where our sense of selves as well as our living conditions are GIVEN to us pre-planned or pre-schemed?

So, when we use our mind and intelligence to evaluate/study such natural affairs, shouldn't we be much careful to study our 'sense of self mechanism' like we take extreme care to evaluate our probing instruments in science?

2. The second answer to the 'why we should analyse the above question' is that we have a severe inner 'urge' to seek truth and actual reality about life and existence. We always want to avoid fallacies and embrace truth, what ever it is. To prove this factor might be bit difficult, as first we need to recognize certain natural pre-liking or predilections of our every sense organ.The universal liking of sweet taste by our tongue is famous. Similarly, our ears always seek to hear melodies rather than disturbing sounds. Our eyes always like to see beauty and order than ugliness and disorder.  Skin always wish to have comfortable temperature and touches.

Similarly, our not yet recognized 'sense faculty', Reason (that senses ORDER, pure SENSE, consistency) seeks justice, 'order' and 'sense' in life, as explained in the following paper: https://isreasonasenseorgan.blogspot.com/2018/11/is-mans-faculty-of-reason-internal.html (please refer subject number 4 of the paper, on the predilections of the sense organs)

Hasn't man invented 'science', compelled by this inherent predilection of his sense faculty of Reason and its pre-liking/predilection for truth and ultimate ORDER? Humans can not rest for long with their routine life affairs till they initiate research into higher and higher realms of realities, till they find out the real facts about life and existence, let it take even millions of years to achieve results.

Yes, we can not over-rule the role of our not yet recognized sense organ of reason behind our invention of science, religions and all other intellectual progress of humankind.

3.Next factor why we should urgently attend to the question referred above is that we humans tend to engage in many of our regular routines, the so called professional fields, ignoring the above questions. We tend to create meaning of life out of the said routines like our markets, mutual relations, politics, our professional fields of earning our livelihoods like jobs etc.  Life here tend to attain temporary meaning, totally unrelated to questions of spiritual or metaphysical ancestry of humans. But luckily or ominously, nature has taken care that at such routine junctures of life, everyone gets great sense of reality, as if to make him believe that such junctures are the end targets of life. We conveniently attribute all the credits of our above listed achievements to our brain and its adaptive abilities.

That was how animals might have lived here for millions of years as if their given selves were the end products of Nature, though such thoughts never ever have occurred to them. We know that the physical and emotional DRIVES that Nature has given to men and women are enough for them to lead many lives on the strength of them. The power of our such needs is so perfect, that no need of any question ever to rise. For empirical support, every community, whether humans or animals, has their histories too. Life is mostly spent without any question of SENSE, chiefly because of the support of its history of of past generations.We have learned to make sense by linking all of them to the adaptive mechanism of brain, it learning from the lessons experienced in history.

Life is authentic for everyone because one's father, mother,brother, sister and others have lived their lives here and died out. Life is an inevitable phenomenon for all.Once born, one has to live life and die.

Question of the SENSE of life, it seems, occurs only to very few among humans. Perhaps the inevitability of life was the cause for this resignation to life. If one entertains such question or not, life has to be lived. If animals lived on such a philosophy, whether they knew it or not, humans today live with the same philosophy, most of them knowing it perfectly well.

Can't lives be lived if we turn real KNOWERS (become aware of the synthetic nature of our sense of self and our life-experiences) and then engage in life with full knowledge of what we are and what we do? Will it affect the way we engage in sex, buying and selling and our social media posts? Yes, perhaps, but not them in any degraded form, but certainly with enhanced enjoyment, merriment and satisfaction. As we have seen, like our urinating organs turn into sexual organs at the maturity of time, this 'awakening' or enlightenment might take time. We can't teach these existential lessons to our wards till they attain certain age. But no doubt, such vital existential lessons when taught to matured persons in our learning centers, we certainly going to have a different society, with very different (with positive changes) institutions.

In short, question of 'why life' occurs only to a few in the beginning, perhaps because it was the way every knowledge development happen to humans and their societies.

4) The fourth point that will be discussed here is the natural way we, humans, departed from the animals lives, still living a very different life. Nothing collapsed due to this vital change. Improved knowledge only enhances the quality of lives, not create serious issues about our self knowledge or our knowledge of the external world.  What I mean to say is, enlightened humans will only enhance the quality of life here on earth and not to disturb its basic features.

Perhaps citizens may not any more stand or bear with the authoritarian and deceiving ways of our political leaders who occupy the chairs today, only to fulfill their ambitions to be like old Kings. Big moneyed industrialists perhaps will end today's trend of deceiving their buyers with false marketing propaganda. We know,how difficult it has become to read any online article or regular story, without a dozen times advertisements cropping up, blocking the page we read in, seeking (or forfeiting) our attention. Reading or using online pages has become like treading in a jungle! Enemies lurking everywhere, looking for an opportunity to pounce upon you.

Primary function of self expression has become blatant enhancement or glorification of own self, whether it is a social media post, a book authoring or a newspaper report. SELF expression might become a ore broader, sharing of the glory of the whole existence.

Perhaps, such evil trends might end once 'self knowledge' of all humans improves and they realize their integral tie with existence.

5) We have prestigious learning centers ( Universities) and philosophy and science associations and journals, but everyone follows the version of science, that fundamentally, existence is a physical affair. Humans and other living forms happen to be here by mere chance in the antiquity of time. First originated was some single cell life-form, and it developed or say, evolved into multi-cell organisms and finally into humans. As a method of critical thinking, the spirit of science deserves appreciation, but she should always introspect her base assumptions. Can't existence be a phenomenon other than what she thinks or religions think, as explained in the following work?


When such possibilities exist, is it sensible that we and our knowledge systems go ahead with such closed, dogmatic, orthodox belief systems?

6)  Arriving at wrong conclusions from observed facts are common. But when we have made great institutions around such wrong conclusions, escape from such conclusions become difficult. Mention here is about the 'self-interest' conclusion of economics and our theory of Capitalism. Self-rooted  nature of humans never should have been interpreted as self-interest, and gigantic institutions built up around such conclusions. Following work delves into this catastrophe:


We have analysed many points as to 'why LIFE' and why its various sub-elements we encounter in day to day life.

This author might have ignored many points, but hope he has covered few of its most relevant ones.

It analysed what were the reasons behind our leading lives the way it was in the past and it is today, totally surrendered to the myths and belief systems of our major knowledge institutions.  Will our future generations forgive us for our folly?

authored by:

Abraham J.Palakudy

He is a seeker and researcher in philosophy, especially metaphysics, Mind, Reason, Spirituality, Democracy etc.

He tweets by the name: Voice of philosophy@jopan1
His other blogs are at link: https://www.blogger.com/profile/14249415589712707293

Thursday, May 21, 2020

What could be the phenomenon of EXISTENCE?

We know, there are three popular speculations on the question of what is existence; one that generally believed by religions, that the cause of existence is an Almighty God. The second is that of science, who believes, existence is PHYSICAL phenomenon which had no beginning but in its present form was began with the BIG BANG that happened some 13.8 billions years ago. Origin of life, according to science, happened as a chance accident. The third is Agnosticism, the view that human intelligence is incapable of knowing anything about such matters.

A sensible answer to this question is so vital to man to lead a meaningful life. His intelligence always craves for an answer. When he was leading an animal life in jungles, such a question never troubled him, but today, though he otherwise leads a comfortable life with all material amenities around him, this question always troubles him. As said once above, a sensible answer to the above question is a vital need to mankind.

How can we know an answer to the question? 

How do we usually know a reliable answer to such questions? Science has her famous method of research, observation, compiling evidences etc, but as the question is METAPHYSICAL, that is not typically related to the physical universe, she considers it outside her realm. Religions already have answers. They have explanations for everything that happens to individuals, such as, for negative events in life, outcome of past life sins, or the sins of this life itself. They worship their Gods, pray to him, conduct rituals, wage wars with followers of other Gods, hate them and believe only in the redemption of own religious followers, or redemption of own self. 

If God is universal, same for all humans, such narrow beliefs can't be accepted by any Logic. Logic is a magic detector of SENSE for humans, though such an angle is yet to be accepted by all. Logic at present runs on axioms and experiences we had already undergone, by comparing their authenticity with the present questions that needing answer. You may study following work that deals with Logic: 


This blog post carry another link too, that explains the role of Reason as a mystery SENSE-ORGAN.

Agnostics already believes in the inability of human intelligence to know the answer to such a question. So no argument is necessary. 

We lead our lives today without much concern for an answer because of the belief of science that life is a physical phenomenon, and its only meaning is to lead it most efficiently, using technological, medical, travel and communication marvels she brings out regularly. 

But can such a stand satiate our inborn SENSE of curiosity, thirst for truth etc? No. Never. We can't shut the doors of knowledge for ever, on the assumption that there is nothing left to find out/know further about life.

To understand existence vis a vis her relationship with each individual or her expectation from each individual might be very complex, as we, humans never entertain such thoughts these days. We generally entertain 'scientific attitude' or a 'religious attitude'. At both the above approaches, understanding existence in actual angle doesn't exist.

I would like to share below the real life-experience of one of my close friends, who happened to undergo life/ existence bare, with all its ferocity or complexity.

He got in love with a girl in 1976, an ordinary good looking girl. He had already in his hands other marriage offers,one of them from a well settled working girl in Switzerland. He rejected all of them and opted for this good looking, very ordinary girl.

They got married in mid 1977. Everything went well till 2002, when she developed uncontrollable blood pressure. Doctors immediately found that she had inherited a deadly kidney disease from her already expired father, PKD, a disease of the kidney that usually manifest when he/she reaches his/her 5th decade of life. Both kidneys fail and the patient needs constant dialysis or a Kidney transplant. He found that there are millions of similar patients in the world.

He had to start dialysis by 2003, three times a week. Usually, dialysis patients gets the deadly Hepatitis C infection from the dialysis machines, and she too got it by 2005. It is considered an incurable liver disease, though there is a standard treatment method in place, with antibiotics course for 3-4 years, though a complete cure is thought impossible.

Naturally, his hope to continue a peaceful life already end. Future was bleak and totally uncertain. By this time, he detected that both his sons had inherited this deadly disease from their mother. He was facing life in its bare form. He started seeking the truth of life. Why such experiences happened to him? He thought and thought every moment of life, seeking an answer to the phenomenon of life. Was it due to his past sins? His sinful past births? His ancestors's sins? Life appeared to him like a burning piece of charcoal in his hands. Naturally, he felt like throwing it away to escape the pain. He reasoned that he carries life only because others around him carry it as routine. But what if when it is all pain and uncertainty? He started detaching life from him and viewing the goings as if he is a third party, simply witnessing the goings.

He seriously sought to know the forces behind life. A merciful God will never choose such horrible things to one of his own creations. If scientific views of struggle for survival was the truth, how can he be an equal one to struggle to survive with all his troubles in hand? He sought and sought the truth about life every moment of his wake state. Why he happened to be in life this way?

While such horrible health troubles were happening to his wife, there were other misfortunes taking place at his work-place too; his employer, a very reputed finance company, got him also involved in a financial malpractice committed by one of his junior colleagues. He not only lost his job but police and the Court made him also a part of their criminal procedures and investigations. 

By now his wife had developed a nasty liver infection and puss started oozing through a tube fitted to the liver.

He had to but know the reason for his troubles from Existence. What wrong had happened to his life? He sought and sought, weeks after weeks and months after months, every moment.

In a miracle kind of recovery, his wife got free from her Hepatitis C infection after 3 months of the antibiotics course, to the utter surprise and non-belief of attending doctors. Now her attending Kidney specialists said, if the oozing of puss from her liver reduced from the present 100 ml a day to at least 20 ml a day, transplant surgery could be undertaken.

A month before her scheduled surgery date, in his rented accommodation near the hospital, he found himself awaken in the bed in an early morning 3 am. He felt, he was being loved intensely. It was a physical experience. He was feeling it at his body-level. He realized, existence is trying to communicate with him, though he first thought it might be part of some dream. But when the experience lasted beyond 10,15 and then 20 minutes, he realized, it is NOT a dream.

There were few messages ingrained somewhere in him; As we know, he was not his actual, worldly self, as it was already thrown out by him long ago when it was like a burning and badly hurting piece of charcoal for him. So, the communication from existence was perhaps easy and direct.

1) His wife will be totally recovered after the transplant surgery.
2). Existence shares the pain and anguish of the real seekers, hence the recovery from his troubles.
3) The general 'predilection' of existence is simply LOVE; everything that seek to know gets back the care and love from existence.
4) There is 'sense' in life and existence. 

He made his ailing wife too to wake up and he explained the very strange experience that had prolonged for 25 minutes.

In the morning too, when he woke up, the leaves in the trees moving in the breeze appeared very different to him, as they exist and move out of the LOVE of existence. It was a revelation as to why life and existence was.It was a life changing experience for him. Was it a communication from existence? Till date he is not sure. But it was so real. What else such an experience could be? But as there was no better explanations, he still believes that it really was a communication from existence.

His wife recovered fully after the surgery and still leading a healthy life. His court case ended wherein he was declared not a part of the crime.

For my philosophic eyes, ears and intelligence too, it was a revelation as to the nature of existence. She can't be mute and dump physical matter. It is true that she is blind to the routine events in the world and in the lives of people, as if her logic is very particular towards such affairs, as explained in my following blog-post:


Let us try to summarize what kind of a phenomenon existence might be:

1. She certainly is NOT dump and mute physical matter as science believes, but a LIVE phenomenon.

2. She lets life forms be as they are, the way schemed by her, trees, microbes or larger animals. Remember, how many millions of years she let animals to lead their lives as they were. Even humans were animal like, for billions of years.

3. She admires intellectual improvements of life forms especially when they improve in their understanding her LIVE status. She doesn't mind passage of even millions of years in this process; we do not know how long these millions of years are for her as she is the schemer of such categories.

4. She may not be a phenomenon the way religions made out of her; worship-lover, virtue seeker etc, but she is keen to help when someone seeks her out.

5.She enjoys when life forms owns up their lives, fully owning their sense of selves.But she certainly hope that one day, at least few of the most advanced beings will realize the folly of their synthetic 'sense' of self.

6. She shares with her creations, the most fundamental emotion that she keeps, that is, 'TO BE', by making others perceive them, and thus, in this process, establishing their tangibility or reality.
(Please get to know of this very fundamental existential DRIVE, at link:


 7. As humans have their peculiar tendency to conceptualize things, events and objects in their own human-way, existence may not fall as one among them. Our intelligence might be complete when we realize this fact, that existence might be something much beyond and above their usual concepts. There could be much beyond what they can conceptualize about existence. It can not be an OBJECTIVE REALITY among their other routine objective realities as this one is their very abode of life. Humans can not set apart the phenomenon of existence as a third party object/reality, as a mere subject of their scholastic study. It is their very meaning, their substance.

8. Every human life is so precious, potent and close to her, that any person might develop his/her intelligence one day and could understand existence and the synthetic nature of own 'self'. Existence won't mind these 'selves' leading their lives in the 'given' way as she seems left it into a 'cause-effect' realm.

9. An ideal society may not be in the scheme of things of existence, as her target is enlightened INDIVIDUALS. We know, an ideal society/state/ WORLD notion will certainly help individuals to achieve this goal faster. In this matter, we, humankind is totally wrong in our approach as we think it is our ultimate goal, and try to create ideal societies. Following write-ups might revels this angle in more clear terms: http://selfandworldblogs.blogspot.com/2015/03/is-world-absolute-object-or-relative.html

In short, whatever we do to create a new world might be irrelevant for existence, though she won't mind/interfere into our such acts.

10. She lets us do whatever we do with our lives, and feel a sense of 'FREE WILL' about it. But she is always there when someone shows signs of realizing the emptiness of own SELF. Perhaps that is the first sign of INTELLIGENCE/enlightenment, according to her.

11. She might create special circumstances for such potential persons who shows signs of developing intelligence.She doesn't hesitate to be with him/her each moment, sharing each moment of their lives,  and their each life-event and thought.

12. In short, existence is a very peculiar phenomenon beyond the images of science and religions, a very LIVE one, very eager to have humans to develop intelligence in the above hinted ways. Each human-being realizing the emptiness, or falsehood of own self is a sign of great joy to her. This seems her sole intention/goal from human lives. Rest aspects of plant and animal life, simply constituting material for humans to lead their lives.

Authored by: Abraham J. Palakudy

He is an ardent seeker/researcher into phenomena of Mind, Sense of self, Metaphysics, democracy etc.

He tweets by the name: Voice of Philosophy@jopan1

His other blogs are at: https://www.blogger.com/profile/14249415589712707293

Thursday, March 12, 2020

Utter need of philosophy and science to analyse why humans experience life in a particular way.

It is plainly open that the major subject matters of science and philosophy are analyzing what is in life (objects and relations) and world, say the nature of energy, atomic particles, their behavior etc for science and consciousness, nature of objects in the world like 'particulars and universals' etc for philosophy.  This is an attempt to list the reasons why it might be a futile intellectual exercise for them to do so. This short paper is meant to explain that life might be merely a 'means' of existence to equip life in a particular way. By the above said exercise, science and philosophy do not touch life as such, to understand what it is and why it is, but only analyse its various objects and relations, a kind of superfluous job.

If we compare this act with that of a community of Androids, perhaps its futility will become more clear to us. If an android community develop a science based on their experience of external world, they might perhaps analyse all objects around them, their so called consciousness and hundreds of such items and relations they encounter in their tenure of life. But we know its futility; till they could find the role of human community and our science that has resulted in their existence, their knowledge on the above described lines will be, no doubt, futile. Can we distinguish our knowledge system of today from that of these android communities?

Another example could be that of a group of long distance travelers; the various entertainment programs arranged by the journey operator during the travel, if foolishly taken by the travelers as the SUBSTANCE of the travel? How the passengers spend their travel tenure has nothing to do with the purpose of the journey of each traveler.  As the journey is too long, there should naturally be various events during the tenure to keep the travelers engaged.

Let the evolution theory be there in tact, only on its intellectual angle. We know, during the transition from the animal stage to intelligent human level, the central development was not our hi-tech telephones, cars, space journey or air travel. It was the development of our intelligence; if animals still blindly remain victims of their animal drives, though we too, we do it with acute self-awareness. We know what we are doing and why. Yes, the central aspect of evolution was our intellectual development. 

Let us attempt to list below, why human-life and existence could be on the lines depicted above.

1. Human logic, our exclusive weapon to arrive at sensible conclusions, is based on universals, that is, analyzing and concluding on some thing on the basis of some other thing we had already observed and known. Bertrand Russell was very clear on this point. He wrote in his paper 'Logic as the essence of philosophy':

'we wish to argue from what has been observed, which can only be done by means of (comparing) some known relations of the observed and the unobserved'.

As life as a phenomenon has no known precedence to compare with, assessing life with the help of Logic was  impossible. So, it was fallacious to conclude life as a survival game on the Darwinian argument line, though he produced many evidences to prove his point. But we must remember what another intellectual giant of our times, Dr. Alfred North Whitehead had stated in one of his famous lecture series given at 'Harvard business school' and later published as a book named 'Business adrift',about experiments and collecting evidence; ( Foresight, chapter 1V, part -1)

'discussions on the method of science wander off onto the topic of experiment. But experiment is nothing else than a mode of cooking the facts for the sake of exemplifying the the law'.

So, we need not give much centrality to experiments and collecting evidence as this act covers only the narrow purpose of exemplifying the subjectively chosen hypotheses.

So, life could be much beyond our judgement on what it is. When we look at life on the light of the universal premise that it is a physical phenomenon, naturally we tend to conclude it on those lines, looking at its visible features and analyzing them, again to exemplify them on the already premised lines.

2.  Are we victims of a sense of 'scholasticism' about knowledge and intelligence? Perhaps yes, if one looks at the present trend of various university level knowledge seeking and studies. Aren't our top universities organize their knowledge materials taking them from the works of old and current masters? Isn't this method straight away reduces our knowledge pursuit, a study of the history of  human knowledge? Doctorate level mandatory paper writing has become centered around a hell lot of REFERENCES. Each sentence of modern philosophy and science papers contains quotes from other, established writers/thinkers.  Slight changes our scholars invent gets usually supported by a new 'ism' or 'logy', and the next generation scholars willingly quote such new 'isms; and 'logies', keeping the base spirit and system alive.

While for logical continuity, reference of past ideas are essential, there should be genuine, intellectual contribution of the scholars themselves to make the knowledge store constantly richer. If all these scholars keep the same existing, fundamental UNIVERSAL, like the 'matter-central' concept of science, origin of new knowledge becomes impossible.

This author has attempted to analyse our existing logical system with the intention of showing the above explained draw back, and love to share it here at link: http://thesparkleofhumanreason.blogspot.com/2016/07/why-our-understanding-of-logic-needs.html

3. As I have already listed all major arguments against the 'philosophy of science', I prefer to give a detailed paper link here, instead of repeating the exercise. All arguments against the stand of our PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE are here in the following link:

Authored by: Abraham J. Palakudy

He is an independent thinker, and an ardent seeker of truth on life and existence. His chief subjects of interest are mind, sense of self, relation between selves and existence, democracy and human rights.

He tweets by the name: Voice of philosophy@jopan1

His profile and other blogs are at link: https://www.blogger.com/profile/14249415589712707293

Saturday, January 25, 2020

Why the concept of OBJECTIVITY, in every sense of the word, may not be there in the scheme of existence?

What we are going to discuss here might be a very odd subject, as such a subject was not at all discussed by any section of existing philosophic thought. The subject will touch the very nature of existence, the nature of human perception, the nature of our existing OBJECTIVE realities etc.

We know, our science is obsessed with OBJECTIVE realities. Concept of OBJECTIVITY basically means 'good for everybody'. It presupposes that subjectivity is irrational, dream like, good for only the one who experience it. It also presupposes that 'existence' is a physical, strictly objective phenomenon, that human intelligence could study and pass good for all scientific judgments/conclusions/theories. Why such a view may be very wrong? Why it is NOT exclusively hinting at the validity of 'subjectivity' in a tussle between the two? This discussion perhaps aimed at widely BROADENING the scope of objectivity. Principle of 'objectivity' covering much broader an area so that it attains a new meaning and scope.

What are the rules of existence covering our realities? Such rules, as we can easily understand, might cover the laws that define questions like 'why humans and their science tend to be obsessed for OBJECTIVE laws that cover very narrow realms of our realities', restricted to what appears before our external sense organs?.  There could be laws of existence covering how we tend to view existence with our pre-designed sense organs? We have no control over the way how our sense organs are  designed to give us knowledge, with their peculiar, particular range, particular category ( sight,taste, smell, touch,hearing) each handle etc. We are simply passive receivers of the way our sense organs give us such categories of knowledge; sight, taste, touch, smell etc. Even we are passive carriers of a 'sense of self' system that nature has designed, though science believes there is no such sense of self system, except as a brain provided illusion.

Why certain laws on how we should observe own life, self and external objects and events might exist and they are the real OBJECTIVE laws? 

Above proposition might seriously oppose the view of science that life and existence are simply physical, mindless phenomenon. How can we decide correctly on such matters? About matters of
existence? Our methods of science are fit only for experimenting on the physical aspects of whatever that exists. But what about the very laws of existence that might be controlling who we had been constituted as observers? Cant there be any law deciding and controlling this aspect? If we believe, that it was the factor of physical or energy necessities that caused all changes and events in the physical world, it is difficult to counter such argument, as the very method of such inferences are based on a particular epistemology that we follow. There is no method discovered or recognized yet that could give us insight into the laws that might be controlling our sense of self. There is no method yet discovered that could question the belief that nature was self born and it sustains itself by the laws of thermodynamics.

Stephen Hawking seemed thought about this problem a bit.In his book, 'A brief history of time, he states;

"If everything in the universe depends on everything else in a fundamental way, it might be impossible to get close to a full solution by investigating parts of the problem in isolation".(Page 12)

Our existing epistemology has no method to undertake a study on the Hawking mentioned 'theory of everything', a theory beyond the belief that human intelligence is equipped to study whatever there in existence, including her laws and schemes that control our very intelligence itself. What is that intelligence?

Our way of inferring theories and hypotheses doesn't come under scientific method. What we have discussed was a very complex issue. It demands our going outside of the scientific method for a while.

Love to share with all inquiring minds, a study on our sense organs:

Above discussed dilemma might demand a serious fresh study of our faculty of Reason. Is it possible that it is a mystery sense faculty provided to man to have insight into such laws of existence that control our sense of self and other mechanisms that control our intelligence and way of acquiring knowledge of a different category?

Abraham J.Palakudy

He is an ardent seeker and researcher in philosophical and metaphysical subjects.

His Twitter sphere: voice of philosophy@jopan1

His other bogs: https://www.blogger.com/profile/14249415589712707293

Wednesday, August 14, 2019

Has life any meaning and sense? Why life? Who might be behind it? A new metaphysics.

Is there any relevance to above questions today? Humans are in life for millions of years. What is the relevance of such a question today?

Initially humankind had only a singular answer to the above questions; the answer religions had given, that an almighty God had created the cosmos and earth, and He planted humans here, so that they worship him, understand Him and attain salvation.(salvation means,human spirit joining His spirit, after death)

During 16th and 17th centuries, the old science of Greek, Islam, Indians, Chinese etc was replaced by modern science of Newton, Galileo etc.

Science started as a tradition of  ignoring the remote cause realm and emphasizing the extreme relevance of the present. Was it a shift in the direction of facing the stark reality of what is in front of the eyes,ignoring everything spooky about the old beliefs? Perhaps, yes.

A new tradition of ignoring all stories of religions and old beliefs was initiated by modern science. 

Life as it was, accepted an inevitable reality irrespective of its cause and metaphysics. Perhaps, that was a better description as to how science was born, and her simple philosophy.

The spectacular victory of nation-states over the Church at the end of the conflict between them had strengthened this base ideology. No more allowances for spooky metaphysics or religious beliefs. Life will be ruled by what has been observed by humans with his rational sense and open observations. Religion was totally ousted from human affairs. Rulers had become the first and foremost sponsors and supporters of science. They had a clear reason for doing so.

In short, the WHY life question lost its relevance for ever in human history. That was a realm handled earlier by the Church and now Church had been shown its place, so from now on, it is the reign of human observation, Reason, and common sense.The reign of science over the world and people's mind had begun. The old authority of Church had now been replaced by Science.

Is there any sense in life? Scientific view is, that question itself is irrelevant. That is a metaphysical question. Why worry of it? Scientific view is, ignore all such metaphysical questions. Observe what humans experience in day today life and that is life.

What humans ultimately need and seek is a good life. Good life is, living it the way the most successful humans live, by possessing everything technology has brought; cars, high tech mobile-phones, temperature controlling devices like air conditioners, fast travel in planes, most expensive footwear, dress and perfumes. Court the best women. Be in the company of most successful humans. What else life is? Be with the nature who always looks for the best who succeeds in the struggle for achieving good life. Life for Nature is simply a struggle to survive. Survive with everything best possible!This is the current, most popular stand on life.

Was it not a simpleton world view?

In the absence of a better world view, it is the best. It is the most practical. Why worry on life metaphysical meaning? Wasn't it an animal time world view? Yes; animals always looked to possess maximum number of mates, best habitat with abundant supply of food etc. Why not to imitate such a plain world view if Nature is FOUND supporting such a world view?

Has such a life any sense?

What sense? Philosophy of science is to follow what is obvious, empirical and what the moment before you demands. Let who care for higher metaphysics, sense and meaning pursue it. But it is not the cup of tea of science!

It is clear here, why science followed such a practical world view. 'Sense'of life is far away, needless, so totally absent from her priorities.

So, why pursue such a question? Seeking answer to such questions is a waste of time.

But can any truth seeking man ignore such 'sense' questions about life?

It is plain evident, man not only has urges to have a good life but also for permanent, ultimate truths. Religions and even Science originated out of such basic human urges. When science abandoned this urge, she thought,she found the most practical, sensible approach towards life. Religions had also abandoned the question when she invented an almighty, creator, preserver God. Religions had moved such questions to God's court. He is the creator and ultimate owner of life, so let him mind such questions and answers. Your job is to worship him and obey him.

Is there 'sense' in these two stands?

What is sense? It seems we have a faculty to detect this 'sense' factor. When a dog is shown to a human and say it is a goat, his 'sense' faculty won't accept it. We must understand here, that words 'dog' and 'goat' are learnt by us. Words are based on our mutual agreement on certain sounds to mean certain objects or relation we have become familiar with. They are not absolute identity of the objects in existence that we observe. Or if we hear, if all A,s are B,s, therefore all C,s are A, the same faculty of sense will violently object.

It is this inherent faculty of 'sense' of humans that object to the above stands of science and religions.This faculty of 'sense' is like the faculty of sight; one need to positively 'use' it. If one goes carelessly without caring what is in front of the eyes, he may hurt his feet on stones on the way, or even put the foot on a snake on the path. Every sense faculty needs such intentional,smart use of them for optimum results. Faculty of sense also is same. It deserves much better, quality use.

Science is yet to recognize the existence of such a 'sense' faculty inherent in humans. For her, truths are only what has been passed by her observations, experiments and logic. What observations can provide when it lacks services of the most important sense faculty, REASON? Science is yet to identify it and recognize its role in acquiring knowledge. Love to share the following paper on this new role of Reason here:


For Logic, she has certain fixed universal premises/axioms.When her observations, experiments are found consistent with these fixed axioms or universal premises, she pass them as theories. The physical nature of everything that exists is one of her chief axioms.

Existence is the exclusive phenomenon we belong to. There is no external abodes standing from where we could pass 'objective' judgments on existence. Can it be a mindless, intention-less, mechanical phenomenon as Science say? Funniest stand of science is, that we can't say because we are smart and intelligent, but universe is mute and dump matter.

Can such a mindless, mechanical stuff cause the emergence of elaborate body organs net work, reflecting unimaginable intelligence and 'creative choices' to sustain life? Are desire for love and care, the most integral aspects of life, essential for survival if we go by the stand of survival theory?

Does sex simply for the sake of pleasure (not for reproduction) essential for survival? Beauty of flowers and valleys essential for survival? Human qualities like writing novels, paintings and other creative arts essential? Philosophy and art essential? Unimaginably different shapes and colors of plant leaves essential?  Size and varieties of fruits? Orgasm? Unimaginable variety in the shape of sexual organs, way of copulation, child birth, and death? Merging of galaxies? Morning and evenings? Seasons? Can a dead, physical cosmos cause all the above to emerge? Only dump minds can claim so.

Everyone who lives his/her life might have experienced in the course of life, that there is a certain mystery element of completion to all life events, whether it is one's daily travel, his diseases, his job, income, meeting his needs etc, totally unrelated to and inconsistent with the effort he put in. Having one's health, income and good life seem to have a foundation and meaning other than one's intelligence and toil.

Yes, life is so complex to be explained by survival related stories. Perhaps following paper might help the reader to understand this argument better: http://leadingdogmasthatruletheworld.blogspot.com/2012/08/leading-dogmas-that-rule-contemporary.html

Is concept of God, sensible? 

We have listed arguments against the belief of science. Now, will a God concept in its religious sense can fill the need for a sensible explanation of life?

Above 'sense' is absent in believing that this almighty God had planted humans on earth in order to relish their devotion, love, worship and good deeds. Does't such an image of God degrades him? Can he be such a pompous entity?

Believing in our inability to grasp God (iconoclasts) also has no 'sense'; when we have been blessed with faculties to see, hear and smell, why we should be deprived of similar faculties to understand the whole drama of existence too? Besides the above given link on Reason, the following link has a complete study on the subject, including a book link that can be found at blog number three from beginning.


If we look closely at whether man holds inherent moral sense might throw disturbing facts.Following  long paper delves into this vital morality issue:


So, if one closely analyse stands of religion and science on existence, both won't pass the simple test of plain human 'sense'. Both the stands/world views were perhaps strategy of believe, and then close shut the mind. Can we go ahead with world views when we claim we are modern?

The uniqueness of existence

While trying to understand life, the phenomenon of 'existence' shines before our eyes in its wholesomeness. It is our exclusive metaphysical, physical and spiritual abode. No one can ignore it and live on like the way animals have been living for millions of years. Even humans also did so, like animals, for millions of years. But can he continues to do so for ever? Can he treat her primary physical nature as her final reality and remain a believer in science?

Existence has the meaning of all meanings. We happened to find and define 'meaning and sense'  because we were extremely lucky to be in life!

It has the 'sense' of all senses. It is a harsh belittling of our basic 'sense', to claim that it is a thermodynamics phenomenon, with no emotional sense and meaning. Theories of thermodynamics are man-made concepts, something man, from his life, has created. How can we judge,that  the very source of our being is based on mere 'categories' (physical/energy) we have invented? We don't know whether our such judgment mechanism also is a 'product' of the scheme we are in. How can science consider that our 'sense of self 'mechanism and its typical sense of 'singularity' are free and independent to have 'objective', sensible assessment of the reality in front of us?

The component level physical-organisation of a 'whole' might exhibit certain mathematical consistencies, but it might not have any binding on the 'whole' and its working principle. Example is atoms; every known physical object has atoms as its base building blocks, but the overall identity, working principles of the wholes are varied unimaginably! Take the mind of man and his brain. Are any two brains behave similarly? Are any two hearts, kidneys or liver? Why Planets and Stars are different? How come huge galaxies merge together uneventfully in outer space?

Can such unique phenomenon that makes up our 'sense of self', intelligence, philosophy and science be 'senseless' and meaningless? A physical affair ruled by the laws of thermodynamics? Such a conclusion will always laugh at our concept of knowledge, perception and epistemology systems.

Perhaps it might laugh at our God concept also, as it was also born out of our fear factor or inborn craze for divinity factor.

Science was perhaps born from an opposite motivation, a despise towards all belief-systems. She took pride in being observation oriented. She doesn't BELIEVE, but make theories on what has been observed, what gets repeated, so also predictable. But such an obsession for 'not believing' could also be the result of some similar features of the smart plan of existence that constituted our 'sense of self' mechanism. .

Why we find life full of meaning, sense and wonder, despite its routine miseries, uncertainties, deaths and wars? 

Arguments we first need to consider here are:

1. Presence of a lot of signs of 'creative choices' in nature we observe: Why the heavenly bodies are spherical in shape, not any other? Can't cosmos been smaller or larger? ( though we don't know yet, how large it is!) Why shape of all plant leaves dissimilar? Why human male sexual organ was designed in the existing fashion? Also that of females'? Couldn't it have been some other shape, design, with different working principle? We could cite thousands of similar examples, showing signs of creative choices in existence. It could have been different, but it is in the existing design as a result of some creative CHOICES.

2. Though science doesn't agree with the principles of SELF explained in following paper, on the very smart plan and scheme of giving birth to the 'sense of self' of man, the evidences are very forceful, sensible and convincing:

She simply holds, that sense of self is a function of the brain. It is extremely difficult for man, be it scientists, philosophers or men of religion, to free himself/herself off all one's pre-notions, pre suppositions, learning, factors of upbringing,categories of knowledge one accustomed with etc and look at existence with a totally free and unbiased, blank mind. Only at such a blank mind, existence could be placed for a genuine 'objective' view of it.

3. Are humans very clear about how he gains knowledge? Perhaps NOT. His existing epistemology is so mixed up and confusing. Even for his so called scientific knowledge, he always depended on a hidden 'sense' faculty, REASON, without knowing its actual role and working. Following paper:

(My book link also there on the subject of Reason in this post)

might throw adequate light on this new area. This area could attain its mainstream status only if Science and Philosophy turn humble enough to accept at least part of the above facts and get ready to open up.

4. Serious inconsistencies of her all controlling biological theory of 'survival of the fittest' are listed in the following paper. Will she attend to these listed inconsistencies and at least try to give answers?http://leadingdogmasthatruletheworld.blogspot.com/2012/08/leading-dogmas-that-rule-contemporary.html

5. Can science open up and start research on the crucial relation between the product 'world' and the individual? She   must accept the existence of natural laws other than that in the physical realm too. Sensible organisations can be there outside the physical realm too. Either physical energies transform to accomplish these extra physical realm, or there are separate energy systems that control laws of this realm.

6. First and foremost step for human to enter a new knowledge realm is to abandon the 'autonomy' of the self realm; he need to rethink whether it is his toil, intelligence and will that make him move, or are they all his GIVEN systems like his involuntary penis erection during sexual encounters, his orgasm,his lung and blood circulation system, his sensory system and brain, his dependence on his sense organs for building the foundation of his knowledge system etc.

Following paper will perhaps help scientists to know more on our dependence on sense organs for building the foundation of our knowledge system: http://thesparkleofhumanreason.blogspot.com/2016/07/sense-organs-of-man-are-they-natures.html

7. The ultimate WHY question and answers might need a thoroughly BLANK mind to comprehend it. Thought it is very simple principle, for minds heavily loaded with pre-notions of physicalism /naturalism, it might face hard resistance.

We have learned from the paper on 'sense of self', that any entity needs some other for establishing its reality. Without some other, one is invisible to oneself! It will be empty nullities without some others.  'I' become something, some identity only when some other perceives me. I am what I am in the perception of such others. He creates me. This is an existential physics perhaps science is yet to identity and accept, and perhaps this is the clue to our WHY question too. Existence is mad about having KNOWING beings. It is certainly a stage in intelligence and self knowledge millions of years away from the animal and jungle humans-stage.

Perhaps this is the answer to the WHY question. It is simple, but very tricky if minds are not free and purely blank for receiving fresh truths.
Following paper on 'WHY life' might throw more good light on this answer: http://newphilosophyoflife.blogspot.com/2018/05/why-life-why-existence.html

Who might be behind the phenomenon of existence?

Science agrees, there is a huge physical universe there. The crucial question is, is she moot, blind and dead physical? Without a mind, can she accomplish all the above listed items of creative choices?  Why she has produced man and his intelligence? Can dead physical matter do it? Can we believe, such a physical whole can have intentions, plans, goals and schemes to sustain herself out of energy needs? If we compare stories of religions and science, many similarities can be seen, stories of both contain more imagination than sensible content. If we read her explanations about the size of the cosmos, or predominantly 'dark matter' filled state, her stories will be more fantastic than creation time or later stage world maintenance stories of religions!

But can we ignore such question and go on living our lives like millions of our forefathers had done and animals and plants continue live on even now? Can we achieve more and more material prosperity, create more and high tech weapons and space travel missions and go on believing in our superior intelligence of  one day conquering the entire cosmos as if it is an enemy-less territory? Shouldn't we have a commitment, an intellectual responsibility to know who we are and why we are here? 

Can man grow above his earthy 'categories' and conceive existence free of them? We know that, our sense organs are our exclusive sources of gaining knowledge about existence and her various categories. It is urgent and crucial that we learn the basics and detailed role of our sense organ of REASON too, and see if it is the sense faculty that is supposed to give us knowledge about the mystery categories of existence?

We know that, or at least the dedicated, committed sages and seekers know, when their usual perceiving tools of the body and world are shut off, they cease to be any worldly entity. At this entity, identity less stage, they perhaps tun non different from the stuff of the real existence. At this stage, perhaps this entity-less beings gain insight into what the controlling force is behind existence,and why they were human beings before the transcendence stage.

There definitely is a cause, a force, a reason and an entity behind existence, human beings, life, seas, galaxies, fishes and plants. It may be much beyond and above our imaginable categories of world. It doesn't mean that it is spooky metaphysical stuff, a term to escape from, not facing the reality behind existence. It is our base, exclusive reality. It is not part of any external, objective affair of man. It is his ancestry,substance and meaning.

While trying to understand existence, first requirement is, we need to free our mind from all God concepts and images. It has certain 'divinity' images, that might harm our desire to know her. When divinity is attributed, we tend to be adopting a role of devotees, creatures etc. Perhaps that roles may not be the right status of humans. When their very 'sense of self' is particular, standing within such role may not be the right, most sensible option. If we free ourselves from such roles and identities, as described above, perhaps we tend to understand existence better.

She (existence) certainly will have a 'predisposition', and it might be her primary reality, feature we better understand and grasp. This stand might be true with understanding other people, and even animals too. Their physical properties may not reveal their predisposition easily. But once we realize someone's /something's predisposition, our understanding will be almost complete.

We realize, even science has her idea of 'predisposition' of existence fixed. She concluded, existence is a physical whole with its typical mechanical, survival oriented predisposition. She helps the ones who follow her predisposition, ie, their tendency to win over others in the survival game. But do existence really helps only the survival-smarts? Our experience says, it is not. Even the most down trodden, diseased and defeated often get up and survive, perhaps even better than the so called survival smarts. So, it is not her primary predisposition.

What about religions' God? He is kind, worship liking, devotion liking etc. Such a stand on her predisposition reiterates human's free willed options to be a devotee. It reiterates his special IDENTITY, positive and final. He often tries himself/herself in being a dear and near one to God. Is our 'sense of self' worth, stable and solid to be a permanent identity? How lasting, solid and real is our sense of self?

As said earlier, when one tries to discard all his pre-notions, pre-identities, and all similar world concepts and notions, it is then he tends to understand existence better. It is the kind of the 'SPIRIT' science once wanted the seekers and researchers of truth to possess. It is the basic of a true scientific method. Holding such a SPIRIT is the primary prerequisite of a scientist. But today, science seems to have mistook 'physicalism' with scientific spirit. Those who hold the view, that existence has a physical base, tend to be known as truly scientific. In short, physicalism has become an other word for the famed scientific spirit.

Existence certainly wants humans to understand her. The moment she/he ( the seekers) shed all their worldly identities, norms and concepts, they experience themselves as integral part of existence. The identities as humans they previously held melts at least for the time being. They can't keep such awareness for long as they tend to live exclusively as their egos, the world entities /sense of selves. Those who once experienced the nullity of their world identities, will always live with the rare knowledge of that experience through the rest of their life!

They tend to live their lives full, indulging in everything it offers, but always with the knowledge that, they are simply participating in the unique opportunity of life! Existence, they have known, as being selfless, loving and caring, and every moment being with seekers. Of course those who build up their entire concept of reality around their sense of self, world and its categories, will have a life experience strictly based on cause-effect, as explained in following paper:http://thewhyquestionofexistenceanswered.blogspot.com/2015/03/how-could-we-explain-diseaseswars-and.html

Science, if open and being true to her original spirit, should have been willing to abandon her obsession and belief in physicalism/ naturalism and sought to know existence as she really is. Humans are not objects in existence but active participants. So, knowing her will be an altogether different exercise. It will perhaps demand a serious paradigm shift to her presuppositions, her method, her concepts of research etc.

If she get willing to open up, perhaps she will be able to eradicate the BELIEFS  in her realm and the realm of religions, and bring in more light and clarity into human minds, ending the existing wall that exist between science and religions.

Above was a new metaphysical stand, world view or whatever similar. If it helps to remove old beliefs, concepts and pre-suppositions of science and religions, or at least science opens up, this author's mission will stand achieved.

Authored by: Abraham J.palakudy
He is a seeker and researcher in philosophy, metaphysics, God, spirituality and polity.

His twitter handle: voice of philosophy@jopan1

His other blogs and profile: https://www.blogger.com/profile/14249415589712707293

Wednesday, November 15, 2017

How sensible was Kant's the 'things in itself' dilemma?

Note: Below is a chapter-extract from part-2 of Author book, Is Reason a sense-organ? A super-mind above the known mind?( Amazon.com, pages 41-44)

The thing 'in itself' dilemma  
Kant's famous differentiation of an object of the senses as mere phenomena, and as a thing 'in itself', was a brilliant observation!  But there are two possible meanings or dimension to the ‘in itself’ status of an object. It would be interesting to probe to understand in what sense the great philosopher had meant it:

1) In the sense of what the 'object' thinks of itself, in contrast to what the subject's objective impression is about it. For example, when I look at a crow on a tree, I may feel that what the crow thinks of itself would be the 'in itself' reality about this creature, than what subjective impression I gather about this object (However, we should limit applying this 'sense' for living beings only as we have no knowledge as to whether a stone or a table has such a self-conscious dimension about themselves! ‘What really is life?’ is yet to be understood fully in the scientific sense).

2) What the object is, in God's mind, or in Nature’s scheme of existence.
If we consider the first sense, we will be required to answer a basic question: Can all objects claim a clear consciousness about itself, as to what they are physically, metaphysically or spiritually? Though what I think of myself would be unimaginably different from what my onlooker subject would think of me, as part of the phenomena around him, I can never claim that what I think of myself is the ‘in itself’ reality about me! This is chiefly because my conceptualization of me can never be other than an objective one, i.e. ‘Me as an external object before me!’ Because I have no other known organ than my mind to know of myself! Hence, even when I maintain an independent subjective world, usually un-penetrable by any third party in its totality, it cannot be considered as my 'in itself' reality. Although in my mind, it is a phenomenal ‘me’.

The same law can confidently be applied to all other kinds of objects. The self-knowledge of no object in existence could be treated as their ‘in-itself’ reality because such knowledge too cannot be outside the barrier of PHENOMENA.

Furthermore, in our new study, we would also want to completely rule out the 2nd dimension of the sense in which 'in itself' was meant i.e. as God had meant it to be. The explanation given below shows why God might not have kept any 'in itself' status for any object, as He wanted the reality of objects to evolve in the process of life, in the subject-object interactions, instead of allocating a permanent, unchangeable identity.
Moreover, by all the logic possible for man, by all the sense of reason he possesses, he could safely presume that 'a thing in itself' could be the one and only original source of existence. It could only have self-consciousness about who he is, or what he is. The rest of the existence can only have 'synthetic' reality, as in the case of ‘Ego’. But how could such synthetic entities break away from the catch of phenomena and have glimpses of their original relation with the one and only 'in itself' reality? The answer to this question is explained in the forthcoming portions. It seems, in all possibility that Kant had meant the 'in itself’ dimension in the second sense only, as God had defined the objects. We will see this dimension of the 'in itself' reality of the objects, a bit more in detail and from a different perspective below:

Every object of the sense is devised for the onlooker?

The reality of each object is, it seems, predominantly 'other' oriented. Each object's reality is the objective reality that the perceiving 'subject' provides to it. (Fichte had touched this kind of a thought while criticizing Kant's original term) What the object thinks of itself, whether it is a living object like an animal, or a plant, or an inorganic object like a stone, is irrelevant in the real world of mutual interaction.

Some body parts of man, as well as animals, (especially the reproductively related organs), are designed and located at such places that, one cannot even see them properly and fully in one's own body! Such organs are, it seems, expected to be seen only by the on looking others! It seems to have been designed by nature exclusively for the on looking subjects. Experience buds in such onlooker subjects are also designed in such a way that, upon seeing, or touching such organs, it makes sense of it instantly, and nature arouses them for the designed action or interaction, say in the act of love making, or if the object is a baby- sucking mothers milk, or if the subject is a predator, hunting down the prey. The beauty of a flower is obviously meant for the honey seeking bees, and butterflies!

In short, no object is a stand alone entity in itself, but a potential piece of existential FLUX, ready to be identified the way its waiting subjects want to mould it! 

It is logically difficult to presume that God might have kept a secret 'in itself' reality for both the objects- here in the world of phenomena, one subject and the other object or both as subjects, and as far as the 'other' in front of both the parties are objects for each other. In other words, no object in the world can be termed an 'OBJECT' forever, as, when it initiates an interaction with another object, it suddenly alters its status as a SUBJECT, who looks at the other with its objective eyes. As said earlier, we can confidently apply these norms to living subjects and objects (man, animals and plants) though we do not know for sure how 'life' can be defined in exact terms! Inorganic objects also react to each other, interchanging their roles as subjects and objects: for example, when the sea water forces itself against a rock on the coast line, why cannot the sea be treated as a subject, and the rock, an object, since energy exchange takes place in the act.

Or, let us go for a more sophisticated example- the general object of SOUND (an object of the sense of the ears). Its very existence depends on the subject's mechanism of the eardrum etc. When the phenomenon of sound was schemed by nature, if it had not devised sensory devices like the ears, it would not have existed for living beings for all practical logic. For a deaf person, sound does not exist as a sense object. There could be many such natural phenomena not yet identified or known by man in this meaning!

Yet another angle of the sense object of sound; man is able to manipulate sound into musical notes, and alter its very nature the way he is able to transform a piece of uranium rock into a nuclear bomb!

Hence, no sense object has got any nature allotted permanent ENTITY, as seen from the above various examples.

‘Phenomena’ is the name of this peculiar arrangement. Here both parties are subjects as well as objects at the same time. What is relevant existentially might be the end result of the interaction of the parties, and not their existential status.

It is much more sensible to presume that God must have kept the much controversial 'in itself reality as a 'wide-open' phenomenon, for the interacting parties in the phenomenal world to define, explore and find it in each other!

The above claim in our study can be found very true, once again in the example of a man-woman love relation; it is in the course of intense interaction that each partner starts experiencing newer and newer colours and features in themselves, that they had never observed within themselves before! When there exists someone in life to receive and joyfully accept whatever behaviour that comes out of each other, partners experience a divine freedom, the FREEDOM OF LOVE', and they blossom like plants and trees in spring! These features of the subject, as well as the object could never have been in the original 'in itself' reality planned by God, but He might have kept it as part of the FREEDOM He had designed for the phenomenal realm of life! 

Same rule can be applied when man encounters a piece of rock too. The rock does not know of itself beyond what its subject- here, man, makes itself with! Yesterday's rock and sand is what stands as today's cemented towers and townships in the world! If that piece of rock has happened to be a piece of the nuclear fuel 'URANIUM', as already seen above, it could have never known of its own destructive powers until its subject -man- attempted to split one of its atoms, and released nuclear energy!

Hence, this study could easily conclude that God, or nature might not have allocated any permanent ‘in itself’ entity or identity to any single object in existence. It was rather a creative manifestation of some mind like energy into a plethora of objects and subjects, left at the PHENOMENAL domain, to evolve itself into self-conscious ENTITIES.

Author: Abraham J. Palakudy
He is a seeker and researcher into subjects like General philosophy, Metaphysics, MInd, and Reason, Spirituality and polity

Contact him: ajoseph1@rediffmail.com
Twitter: Voice of philosophy@jopan1

His profile and other blog-posts: https://www.blogger.com/profile/14249415589712707293