tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-41346195450533639082024-03-08T01:37:40.388-08:00Why life, and why existence ? Deep philosophic viewsVOICE OF PHILOSOPHYhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14249415589712707293noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4134619545053363908.post-68424256787740926782023-08-09T06:25:00.000-07:002023-08-09T06:27:39.483-07:00VOICE OF PHILOSOPHYhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14249415589712707293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4134619545053363908.post-37629052605099833322021-12-17T20:50:00.000-08:002023-04-01T07:31:57.793-07:00VOICE OF PHILOSOPHYhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14249415589712707293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4134619545053363908.post-24545242932842153502021-06-23T06:47:00.003-07:002022-07-19T09:11:01.433-07:00Why EXISTENCE could be much different a phenomenon from what Science and Religions think<p>The intention of this brief post is to tell all humans of mind and right thinking that the TWO major viewpoints prevalent today could be wrong; that of science, which keeps a bottom premise, 'everything that exists is PHYSICAL in nature, and religions, 'an Almighty God is behind everything that exists. </p><p>Humankind, especially the modern world, with its top universities, research institutions, etc, shouldn't live with such wrong notions, especially when she believes, her views are modern and she is blessed with all epistemological tools to ensure the correctness of her beliefs.. </p><p>Science believes humans are bestowed with the ability to infer rightly, as her findings are OBJECTIVE in nature. This base belief in her ability to infer OBJECTIVE reality did not change despite clear opposite findings of her own latest research field, Quantum. Quantum mechanics found that whatever humans observe, especially her scientific observations will bring only results directly connected with her presuppositions. The following scientific study states this fact. </p><p>https://edgy.app/objective-reality-doesnt-exist-says-quantum-physics.</p><p> So, how should we infer?</p><p>Very difficult question.</p><p>Can we have only our speculations?</p><p>An answer doesn't seem in our capacity. It is the special job of philosophers. Does philosophy has an epistemology that gives special answers to this question?</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p> </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>VOICE OF PHILOSOPHYhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14249415589712707293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4134619545053363908.post-30217136142591781062020-11-24T06:24:00.004-08:002020-11-25T05:03:52.850-08:00Possible existential scheme<p>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 <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism" style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #0b0080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px;" title="">materialistic monism</a><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;">, </span><a class="mw-redirect" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_theory_of_mind" style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #0b0080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Identity theory of mind">type identity theory</a><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;">, </span><a class="mw-redirect" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Token_identity" style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #0b0080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Token identity">token identity theory</a><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;">, </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism_(philosophy_of_mind)" style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #0b0080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Functionalism (philosophy of mind)">functionalism</a><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;">, </span><a class="mw-redirect" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductive_physicalism" style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #0b0080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Reductive physicalism">reductive physicalism</a><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;">, </span><a class="mw-redirect" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonreductive_physicalism" style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #0b0080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Nonreductive physicalism">nonreductive physicalism</a><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;">, </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminative_materialism" style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #0b0080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Eliminative materialism">eliminative materialism</a><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;">, </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomalous_monism" style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #0b0080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Anomalous monism">anomalous monism</a><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;">, </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_dualism" style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #0b0080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Property dualism">property dualism</a><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;">, </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiphenomenalism" style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #0b0080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Epiphenomenalism">epiphenomenalism</a>,<span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;"> </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence" style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #0b0080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Emergence">emergence</a>,<span face="sans-serif" style="color: #202122;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14px;"> etc </span></span></p><p><span face="sans-serif" style="color: #202122;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14px;">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'. </span></span></p><p><span style="color: #202122;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14px;"><b><u>Are we, humans, expected to know such a scheme of existence? If yes, how?</u></b></span></span></p><p><span style="color: #202122;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14px;">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.</span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;">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: </span></p><p><span face="sans-serif" style="color: #202122;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14px;">http://thesparkleofhumanreason.blogspot.com/2011/01/part-b.html</span></span></p><p><span style="color: #202122;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14px;">The following link might provide more, additional details on the subject: https://isreasonasenseorgan.blogspot.com/2018/11/is-mans-faculty-of-reason-internal.html</span></span></p><p><br /></p><p><span style="color: #202122;"><span style="font-size: 14px;">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:</span></span></p><p><span style="color: #202122;"><span style="font-size: 14px;"> http://thesparkleofhumanreason.blogspot.com/2016/07/sense-organs-of-man-are-they-natures.html</span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;">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. </span></p><p><b style="color: #202122; font-size: 14px;"><u>1. Can we adopt two different stands towards life and existence? </u></b></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;">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.</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;">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. </span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;">So, two kinds of leading life are quite possible and proven reality.</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;"><br /></span></p><p><span face="sans-serif" style="color: #202122;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14px;"><b><u>2. Can we use our bodily and emotional systems as our own and be proud of them?</u></b></span></span></p><p><span face="sans-serif" style="color: #202122;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14px;"><b><u><br /></u></b></span></span></p><p><span face="sans-serif" style="color: #202122;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14px;">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?</span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;">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. </span></p><p><span face="sans-serif" style="color: #202122;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14px;">Descartes' principle was unfortunately wrong.( I think, so I am) What seems true is, 'you are, hence I am'. </span></span></p><p><span face="sans-serif" style="color: #202122;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14px;">The following paper might offer more details on this new proposition: </span></span></p><p><span face="sans-serif" style="color: #202122;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14px;">http://unrecognizedobjectsofthemind.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-physics-behind-birth-of-human-self-i.html</span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;"><b><u><br /></u></b></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;"><b><u>3.What Logic must have been there behind having humans in life?</u></b> </span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;">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.</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;">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. </span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;">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. </span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;">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. </span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;">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. </span></p><p><b><u>4.The inevitable need for a sense of REALITY for being in existence </u></b></p><p>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'.</p><p>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. </p><p>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. </p><p><b><u> 5.Why there are numerous inorganic objects, living species of animals and plants around us in existence? </u></b> </p><p>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. </p><p>Let us attempt to sensibly assume the logic of existence behind the above step. </p><p>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. </p><p>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! </p><p>6. <b><u>So, what kind of an overall 'predilection' existence might be having towards the world and its living and non-living objects?</u></b></p><p>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. </p><p>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? </p><p>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: </p><p>http://thewhyquestionofexistenceanswered.blogspot.com/2019/08/has-life-any-meaning-and-sense-why-life.html</p><p><u><b>What might be preventing the present-day world from altering her existing word view?</b></u></p><p>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. </p><p>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. </p><p>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. </p><p>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. </p><p>Love to share with the readers, a study on the central place of such UNIVERSALS in our logical system: </p><p>http://thesparkleofhumanreason.blogspot.com/2016/07/why-our-understanding-of-logic-needs.html</p><p>All the above are reasons for our continuing with our very fallacious knowledge system.</p><p>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!</p><p>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. </p><p><br /></p><p>Authored by: Abraham J.Palakudy</p><p>He is an independent philosophy, metaphysics, and seeker/researcher of knowledge. </p><p>His other blogs are at link: https://www.blogger.com/profile/14249415589712707293</p><p>He tweets by the name: Voice of philosohy@jopan1</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><span face="sans-serif" style="color: #202122;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14px;"><br /></span></span></p><p><span face="sans-serif" style="color: #202122;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14px;"><br /></span></span></p><p><span face="sans-serif" style="color: #202122;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14px;"><br /></span></span></p><p><span face="sans-serif" style="color: #202122;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14px;"><br /></span></span></p><p><span face="sans-serif" style="color: #202122;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14px;"><br /></span></span></p><p><span face="sans-serif" style="color: #202122;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14px;"><br /></span></span></p><p><span face="sans-serif" style="color: #202122;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14px;"><br /></span></span></p>VOICE OF PHILOSOPHYhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14249415589712707293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4134619545053363908.post-16921862923473949442020-07-27T07:28:00.002-07:002020-09-03T10:41:50.801-07:00Why we, humans, get so accustomed with the way we live, with our cultures, self identities etc?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
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)<br />
<h4 style="text-align: left;">
<b><br /></b></h4>
<h4 style="text-align: left;">
<b><br /></b></h4>
<h4 style="text-align: left;">
<b>Why we should analyse the WHY questions of life and its various sub-elements in life? </b></h4>
<div>
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:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://unrecognizedobjectsofthemind.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-physics-behind-birth-of-human-self-i.html">http://unrecognizedobjectsofthemind.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-physics-behind-birth-of-human-self-i.html</a><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
The following inborn physical and emotional DRIVES too have started acting upon us and our behavior at appropriate ages:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://unrecognizedobjectsofthemind.blogspot.com/2013/07/existential-drives-of-man.html">http://unrecognizedobjectsofthemind.blogspot.com/2013/07/existential-drives-of-man.html</a><br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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: <a href="https://isreasonasenseorgan.blogspot.com/2018/11/is-mans-faculty-of-reason-internal.html">https://isreasonasenseorgan.blogspot.com/2018/11/is-mans-faculty-of-reason-internal.html</a> (please refer subject number 4 of the paper, on the predilections of the sense organs)<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Perhaps, such evil trends might end once 'self knowledge' of all humans improves and they realize their integral tie with existence.<br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
<a href="http://thewhyquestionofexistenceanswered.blogspot.com/2019/08/has-life-any-meaning-and-sense-why-life.html">http://thewhyquestionofexistenceanswered.blogspot.com/2019/08/has-life-any-meaning-and-sense-why-life.html</a><br />
<br />
When such possibilities exist, is it sensible that we and our knowledge systems go ahead with such closed, dogmatic, orthodox belief systems?<br />
<br />
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:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://communicationonnewworldorder.blogspot.com/2015/12/an-open-letter-to-every-man-of-mind-in.html">http://communicationonnewworldorder.blogspot.com/2015/12/an-open-letter-to-every-man-of-mind-in.html</a><br />
<br />
We have analysed many points as to 'why LIFE' and why its various sub-elements we encounter in day to day life.<br />
<br />
This author might have ignored many points, but hope he has covered few of its most relevant ones.<br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
authored by:<br />
<br />
Abraham J.Palakudy<br />
<br />
He is a seeker and researcher in philosophy, especially metaphysics, Mind, Reason, Spirituality, Democracy etc.<br />
<br />
He tweets by the name: Voice of philosophy@jopan1<br />
His other blogs are at link: <a href="https://www.blogger.com/profile/14249415589712707293">https://www.blogger.com/profile/14249415589712707293</a><br />
.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><br /></b>
<b><br /></b>
<b><br /></b></div>
</div>
VOICE OF PHILOSOPHYhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14249415589712707293noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4134619545053363908.post-34342660640773506892020-05-21T19:42:00.001-07:002020-07-12T23:19:07.746-07:00What could be the phenomenon of EXISTENCE? <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<h4 style="text-align: left;">
<b>How can we know an answer to the question? </b></h4>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
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. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
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: </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="http://thesparkleofhumanreason.blogspot.com/2016/07/why-our-understanding-of-logic-needs.html">http://thesparkleofhumanreason.blogspot.com/2016/07/why-our-understanding-of-logic-needs.html</a><br />
<br />
This blog post carry another link too, that explains the role of Reason as a mystery SENSE-ORGAN.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Agnostics already believes in the inability of human intelligence to know the answer to such a question. So no argument is necessary. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
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. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
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.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
By now his wife had developed a nasty liver infection and puss started oozing through a tube fitted to the liver.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
1) His wife will be totally recovered after the transplant surgery.<br />
2). Existence shares the pain and anguish of the real seekers, hence the recovery from his troubles.<br />
3) The general 'predilection' of existence is simply LOVE; everything that seek to know gets back the care and love from existence.<br />
4) There is 'sense' in life and existence. <br />
<br />
He made his ailing wife too to wake up and he explained the very strange experience that had prolonged for 25 minutes.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://thewhyquestionofexistenceanswered.blogspot.com/2015/03/how-could-we-explain-diseaseswars-and.html">http://thewhyquestionofexistenceanswered.blogspot.com/2015/03/how-could-we-explain-diseaseswars-and.html</a><br />
<br />
<h4 style="text-align: left;">
<b>Let us try to summarize what kind of a phenomenon existence might be:</b></h4>
<br />
1. She certainly is NOT dump and mute physical matter as science believes, but a LIVE phenomenon.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
(Please get to know of this very fundamental existential DRIVE, at link:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://unrecognizedobjectsofthemind.blogspot.com/2013/07/existential-drives-of-man.html">http://unrecognizedobjectsofthemind.blogspot.com/2013/07/existential-drives-of-man.html</a><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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: <a href="http://selfandworldblogs.blogspot.com/2015/03/is-world-absolute-object-or-relative.html">http://selfandworldblogs.blogspot.com/2015/03/is-world-absolute-object-or-relative.html</a><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
Authored by: Abraham J. Palakudy<br />
<br />
He is an ardent seeker/researcher into phenomena of Mind, Sense of self, Metaphysics, democracy etc.<br />
<br />
He tweets by the name: Voice of Philosophy@jopan1<br />
<br />
His other blogs are at: <a href="https://www.blogger.com/profile/14249415589712707293">https://www.blogger.com/profile/14249415589712707293</a><br />
<br /></div>
</div>
VOICE OF PHILOSOPHYhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14249415589712707293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4134619545053363908.post-17587227189428953832020-03-12T09:07:00.002-07:002020-04-27T08:28:52.325-07:00Utter need of philosophy and science to analyse why humans experience life in a particular way.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
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.<br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
<br />
Let us attempt to list below, why human-life and existence could be on the lines depicted above.<br />
<br />
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':<br />
<br />
'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'.<br />
<br />
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)<br />
<br />
'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'.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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: <a href="http://thesparkleofhumanreason.blogspot.com/2016/07/why-our-understanding-of-logic-needs.html">http://thesparkleofhumanreason.blogspot.com/2016/07/why-our-understanding-of-logic-needs.html</a><br />
<br />
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:<br />
<a href="http://argumentsagainstscientificpositivism.blogspot.com/2018/12/a-rational-sensible-review-of.html">http://argumentsagainstscientificpositivism.blogspot.com/2018/12/a-rational-sensible-review-of.html</a><br />
<br />
<br />
Authored by: Abraham J. Palakudy<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
He tweets by the name: Voice of philosophy@jopan1<br />
<br />
His profile and other blogs are at link: <a href="https://www.blogger.com/profile/14249415589712707293">https://www.blogger.com/profile/14249415589712707293</a></div>
VOICE OF PHILOSOPHYhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14249415589712707293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4134619545053363908.post-47052868494087647142020-01-25T22:05:00.003-08:002020-07-26T01:31:15.496-07:00Why the concept of OBJECTIVITY, in every sense of the word, may not be there in the scheme of existence? <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<b>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? </b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b><br /></b>
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<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Stephen Hawking seemed thought about this problem a bit.In his book, 'A brief history of time, he states;<br />
<br />
"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)<br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Love to share with all inquiring minds, a study on our sense organs:<br />
<a href="http://thesparkleofhumanreason.blogspot.com/2016/07/sense-organs-of-man-are-they-natures.html">http://thesparkleofhumanreason.blogspot.com/2016/07/sense-organs-of-man-are-they-natures.html</a><br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
<br />
Abraham J.Palakudy<br />
<br />
He is an ardent seeker and researcher in philosophical and metaphysical subjects.<br />
<br />
His Twitter sphere: voice of philosophy@jopan1<br />
<br />
His other bogs: <a href="https://www.blogger.com/profile/14249415589712707293">https://www.blogger.com/profile/14249415589712707293</a></div>
VOICE OF PHILOSOPHYhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14249415589712707293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4134619545053363908.post-87737777875275670252019-08-14T02:29:00.001-07:002020-03-14T21:44:10.251-07:00Has life any meaning and sense? Why life? Who might be behind it? A new metaphysics.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
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)<br />
<br />
During 16th and 17th centuries, the old science of Greek, Islam, Indians, Chinese etc was replaced by modern science of Newton, Galileo etc.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
A new tradition of ignoring all stories of religions and old beliefs was initiated by modern science. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<b><u>Was it not a simpleton world view?</u></b><br />
<b><u><br /></u></b>
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?<br />
<br />
Has such a life any sense?<br />
<br />
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!<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
So, why pursue such a question? Seeking answer to such questions is a waste of time.<br />
<br />
<b><u>But can any truth seeking man ignore such 'sense' questions about life?</u></b><br />
<b><u><br /></u></b>
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.<br />
<br />
Is there 'sense' in these two stands?<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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:<br />
<br />
<a href="https://isreasonasenseorgan.blogspot.com/2018/11/is-mans-faculty-of-reason-internal.html">https://isreasonasenseorgan.blogspot.com/2018/11/is-mans-faculty-of-reason-internal.html</a><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Yes, life is so complex to be explained by survival related stories. Perhaps following paper might help the reader to understand this argument better: <a href="http://leadingdogmasthatruletheworld.blogspot.com/2012/08/leading-dogmas-that-rule-contemporary.html">http://leadingdogmasthatruletheworld.blogspot.com/2012/08/leading-dogmas-that-rule-contemporary.html</a><br />
<br />
<b><u>Is concept of God, sensible? </u></b><br />
<b><u><br /></u></b>
<b><u><br /></u></b>
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?<br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://thesparkleofhumanreason.blogspot.com/2011/01/part-b.html">http://thesparkleofhumanreason.blogspot.com/2011/01/part-b.html</a><br />
<br />
<br />
If we look closely at whether man holds inherent moral sense might throw disturbing facts.Following long paper delves into this vital morality issue:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://newphilosophyoflife.blogspot.com/2018/01/is-there-inherent-moral-element-behind_24.html">http://newphilosophyoflife.blogspot.com/2018/01/is-there-inherent-moral-element-behind_24.html</a><br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><u>The uniqueness of existence</u></b><br />
<br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
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!<br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
<b><u><br /></u></b>
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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. .<br />
<br />
<b><u>Why we find life full of meaning, sense and wonder, despite its routine miseries, uncertainties, deaths and wars? </u></b><br />
<b><u><br /></u></b>
Arguments we first need to consider here are:<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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:<br />
<a href="http://unrecognizedobjectsofthemind.blogspot.com/2019/06/concepts-of-self-realization-and.html">http://unrecognizedobjectsofthemind.blogspot.com/2019/06/concepts-of-self-realization-and.html</a><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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:<br />
<br />
https://isreasonasenseorgan.blogspot.com/2013/09/is-reason-internal-sense-organ-super.html?m=1<br />
(My book link also there on the subject of Reason in this post)<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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?<a href="http://leadingdogmasthatruletheworld.blogspot.com/2012/08/leading-dogmas-that-rule-contemporary.html">http://leadingdogmasthatruletheworld.blogspot.com/2012/08/leading-dogmas-that-rule-contemporary.html</a><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Following paper will perhaps help scientists to know more on our dependence on sense organs for building the foundation of our knowledge system: <a href="http://thesparkleofhumanreason.blogspot.com/2016/07/sense-organs-of-man-are-they-natures.html">http://thesparkleofhumanreason.blogspot.com/2016/07/sense-organs-of-man-are-they-natures.html</a><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
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.<br />
Following paper on 'WHY life' might throw more good light on this answer: <a href="http://newphilosophyoflife.blogspot.com/2018/05/why-life-why-existence.html">http://newphilosophyoflife.blogspot.com/2018/05/why-life-why-existence.html</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<b><u>Who might be behind the phenomenon of existence?</u></b><br />
<b><u><br /></u></b>
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!<br />
<br />
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? <br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
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. <span style="color: red; font-weight: bold;">At this entity, identity less stage, they perhaps tun non different from the stuff of the real existence. </span>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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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!<br />
<br />
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:<a href="http://thewhyquestionofexistenceanswered.blogspot.com/2015/03/how-could-we-explain-diseaseswars-and.html">http://thewhyquestionofexistenceanswered.blogspot.com/2015/03/how-could-we-explain-diseaseswars-and.html</a><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
Authored by: Abraham J.palakudy<br />
He is a seeker and researcher in philosophy, metaphysics, God, spirituality and polity.<br />
<br />
His twitter handle: voice of philosophy@jopan1<br />
<br />
His other blogs and profile: <a href="https://www.blogger.com/profile/14249415589712707293">https://www.blogger.com/profile/14249415589712707293</a><br />
<span style="color: red; font-weight: bold;"><br /></span>
<br />
<b><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></b>
<b><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></b>
</div>
VOICE OF PHILOSOPHYhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14249415589712707293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4134619545053363908.post-67472978454156328712017-11-15T02:19:00.001-08:002020-07-23T00:52:31.593-07:00How sensible was Kant's the 'things in itself' dilemma?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "courier new"; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: 18.48px;">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)</span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; tab-stops: 238.5pt;">
<b><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "courier new";">The thing 'in itself' dilemma </span></u></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "courier new"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "courier new";">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:</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "courier new"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "courier new";">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).</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "courier new"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "courier new";">2) What the object is, in God's mind, or in Nature’s scheme of existence.</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "courier new"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "courier new";">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’.</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "courier new"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "courier new";">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.</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "courier new"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "courier new";">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. </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "courier new"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "courier new";">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?<b> The answer to this question is explained in the forthcoming portions. </b></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "courier new";">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:</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "courier new"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<b><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "courier new";">Every object of the sense is devised for the onlooker?</span></u></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "courier new"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "courier new";">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.</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "courier new"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "courier new";">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!</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "courier new"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "courier new"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">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! </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "courier new"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "courier new";">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.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "courier new"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">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</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "courier new"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";">,<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>who looks at the other with its objective eyes.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>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.<span style="color: #222222;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "courier new";">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!</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "courier new"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "courier new";">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!</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "courier new"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "courier new";">Hence, no sense object has got any nature allotted permanent ENTITY, as seen from the above various examples.</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "courier new"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "courier new"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">‘Phenomena’ is the name of this peculiar arrangement. Here both parties are subjects as well as objects at the same time.<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: red;"> </span></span>What is relevant existentially might be the end result of the interaction of the parties, and not their existential status<b>.</b></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "courier new"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "courier new"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">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!</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "courier new"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "courier new";">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!<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "courier new"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";">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! <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "courier new";">Same rule can be applied when man encounters a piece of rock too. </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "courier new"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";">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!<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "courier new";">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.</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "courier new"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "courier new";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "courier new";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: 18.48px;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "courier new";">Author: Abraham J. Palakudy</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: 18.48px;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "courier new";">He is a seeker and researcher into subjects like General philosophy, Metaphysics, MInd, and Reason, Spirituality and polity</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: 18.48px;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "courier new";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: 18.48px;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "courier new";">Contact him: ajoseph1@rediffmail.com</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: 18.48px;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "courier new";">Twitter: Voice of philosophy@jopan1</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: 18.48px;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "courier new";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "courier new";"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: 18.48px;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "courier new";">His profile and other blog-posts: https://www.blogger.com/profile/14249415589712707293</span></div>
</div>
VOICE OF PHILOSOPHYhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14249415589712707293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4134619545053363908.post-35980776795033077082017-11-15T02:05:00.000-08:002017-11-15T02:05:38.918-08:00What is human experience? The concept of 'experience buds'<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Courier New';">Note: Below is a chapter-extract from part-2 of his Book,' Is Reason a sense organ? A super-mind above the known Mind?'(Amazon.com)Pages 34-37</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Courier New';"><br /></span>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<b><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Courier New';">How does man make 'sense' of his experiences?</span></u></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Courier New';">This study wishes to look again at the classic concepts of 'sense experience', in order to have better clarity. The broad definition of 'experience' was meant for the knowledge that the mind gathers through the medium of external senses. Immanuel Kant, the most reputed of the modern day philosophers had undertaken the most elaborate study on such subjects. He says, 'pure knowledge' could be only that which the faculty of Reason gathers by itself 'a priori', that is, without the aid of the sensory experience.</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Courier New';">This study wishes to abandon these two basic assumptions altogether, as Reason has every 'reason' to be believed as a SENSE ORGAN, similar to our external sense organs. (A detailed study has been offered in one of the following paragraphs, as well as in the previous section of this book). The category it senses is the inherent ORDER and CONSISTENCY in existence, the way the tongue senses the category of taste, the ear that of sound, and the skin that of touch inherent in the phenomenal realm. </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Courier New';">This study wishes to also understand EXPERIENCE, however, a bit differently. It would like to relate experience as a term that the layman can understand, i.e. like what he would mean by 'experiencing' love, anger or depression. When his eye encounters a piece of rock, the ear hears thunder or tongue tastes an apple, it need not be classified in the general category of EXPERIENCE. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Courier New';">Sense organs are like openings without doors. It remains open towards the world always, involuntarily. Only sleep, which again visits man involuntarily, keeps the doors of the senses shut. It is the man's mind, an organ that works on its own laws which decides what sensory input is relevant to the unit man, and what is not. The mind digests these inputs, like one’s digestive organs, digest food. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Courier New';">This study wishes to classify only one's emotional encounters as a real 'EXPERIENCE'. Here, the concept of EXPERIENCE BUDS is introduced.</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Courier New';">A rose or a piece of rock need not be classified as ‘an experience', but only a passing phenomenon for the mind, in its central course of experiencing life's emotions. Life is more or less a journey for experiencing such emotions, and such objects of the senses have a mere supporting role as accessories for achieving the main purpose. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Courier New';">Such emotions have its ‘experience buds’ (like the taste buds on the tongue) pre-fixed in the mind, so that man could make ‘sense’ out of such experiences, upon encountering them. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Courier New';">Unlike this, his usual sense inputs do not have any such pre-set experience buds hence man has to understand it in his own subjective way. Phenomena consist of this subjective realm. It is a stand-alone, synthetic realm where only the meanings and concepts that man have provided rules. Every age, thus, has its own concept and meaning of life. But, emotions, it seems, stays outside the phenomenon realm, because they do not pass through the external senses. </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Courier New';">For example, when someone encounters his first love in life, he would not have been able to make sense of this wonderful experience unless he had a pre-set experience BUD somewhere hidden in his system, to support the relishing of this emotion. There is no chance that he had acquired the knowledge of this experience through his senses, during his lifetime. Unlike a piece of rock or a tree, man need not toil to give subjective meaning to this emotional ‘object’ of the inner sense organ. Such experiences have pre-built experience buds, to make sense of it. It is more or less universal, as every man, and even animals make sense of such emotional inputs naturally. </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Courier New';">Similarly, when someone experiences an attack on his self-respect, and self-hood, from a fellow being, or from the collective institutions such as a State, the rage that develops within him is definitely due to a pre-set experience bud. This emotion of self-protection and anger comes naturally to every human being, and even for members of the animal kingdom. We can not produce any evidence to prove that these are products of sense experience. </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Courier New';">When closely observed, it appears that the human mind makes sense of such EXPERIENCES the way the tongue makes sense of the different tastes, by its inbuilt taste-bud mechanism as mentioned above. Like the human tongue, which cannot experience a taste outside the range of its buds, we should infer that the mind also would not be able to make sense out of ‘an experience' that has no support of the 'experience bud'.</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<b><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Courier New';">More on EXPERIENCE BUDS: the craving of the EXPERIENCE BUDS for satiation</span></u></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Courier New';">It is not that each and every experience has the support of independent pre-set BUDS in the mind, but it seems that these buds are designed in such a way that various sub-experiences of a main category of experience, collectively cater to one main category.</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Courier New';">For example, when a man is making love, he is not experiencing the sum total of all his various sense inputs of touch, taste, smell etc., but wholesomely relishing the main category of the experience, i.e. ‘Love’. Such 'experience' buds look similar to the color buds in the brain, various shades of Green, or perhaps Red, go to the same location, to make sense of the main color Green, or Red.</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Courier New';">Each experience bud it seems constantly craves for its fulfillment too. Freud's notion of ‘Id’ attains relevance here. He mentioned ‘Id’ as a seat of various inborn cravings. Cravings such as REVENGE, or DEPRESSION, it appears to develop as a result of the bruised, or the chronically dissatisfied original cravings. These appear like negative energies, which could be neutralized, or extinguished in most of the cases when some form of satiation is achieved. </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<b><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Courier New';">The philosophic relevance of this proposition of pre-designed EXPERIENCE BUDS.</span></u></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Courier New';"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Courier New';">Our new study on the pre-designed experience buds could throw new questions on the great philosophic debate over how much of man's knowledge is ' <i>a priori</i>' (prior to experience) and how much is 'a <i>posterior-i</i>' (after experience). When a seeker finds sense in the above proposition of pre-set experience buds, he will naturally have to accept that there isn't much left to be classified as a posterior-i in man's experience realm, except his realm for synthetic objects of the external senses, such as a piece of rock, or a flower, or a dog.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Such routine objects of the external senses enter the realm of the mind by the principle of 'association' and remain in memory in a subjective pictorial representation, or in WORD form when the unit man learns a language.</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Courier New';">When our sciences attempt to know only the 'objects' in the world, for their stand-alone reality as PHENOMENA, or in the 'in itself' mode, great philosophic dilemmas arise, as to how far the faculties of our mind, including Reason, could succeed in doing the job. Hence this study has been done to seek more acceptable answers. </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Courier New';">Coming back to the experience buds, for a newborn baby, the sensory experience of the nipple of his mother's breast in his mouth, and the sight of the breast may be OBJECTS that he encounters for the first time, but the emotions (sense of safety, and warmth of motherly love etc.) associated with birth were in his system 'a priori'. For a lover, the sight of the well-carved breast of his lady love sends tremors through the spine, and the sight kindles the pre-designed emotions in him. The object - breast - is the same for the newborn baby as well as for the lover, but it arouses different emotions in the two subjects. Similarly, a mother deer is two different objects, one for her calf, and the other for the predator, say a Lion, therefore the emotions attached to the same object is different for the two different subjects.</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Courier New';">We should safely assume that, in the mind of a human male, the images of a female’s breast and her other beautifully carved body parts had been vaguely implanted in his system by nature, hence the eternal appetite he has, to watch these objects, and the arousal that follows it. Likewise, the images of the prey's (for example, that of a deer, in the minds of Lions) appetite arousing forms and shapes must have been implanted in the minds of the predator, to make sense of such sights, to arouse a necessary passion, and to compel him to go for the kill. </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Courier New';">The routine objects of the external sense organs have very little to do with man's 'emotional experiences, except in its role probably as mere instruments, or 'stimuli' in having emotional experiences. They collectively form materials for the sense world, which he associates his 'self' with. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Courier New';">Man’s EGO is the first and foremost item that emerges from PHENOMENA. Or we can say the emergence of the EGO was the sole purpose behind the scheming of PHENOMENA by nature. It emerges first of all 'as the owner of the experiences he encounters', and as ‘an object among other routine objects around him'. This idea is explained in more detail in one of the foregoing parts of this study. </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Life, after all, looks like a saga of man's experiencing a series of EMOTIONS during his lifespan. It has very less to do with the innumerable physical objects he comes across in carrying out the life-process. It serves the purpose of only a stage or a canvas for the main theme to be enacted.<b><span style="color: red;"> </span></b></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Author: Abraham J. Palakudy</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">He is a seeker and researcher into subjects like General philosophy, Metaphysics, MInd, and Reason, Spirituality and polity</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Contact him: ajoseph1@rediffmail.com</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Twitter: Voice of philosophy@jopan1</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">His profile and other blog-posts: https://www.blogger.com/profile/14249415589712707293</span></div>
</div>
VOICE OF PHILOSOPHYhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14249415589712707293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4134619545053363908.post-5107393653905261442017-08-19T09:15:00.001-07:002020-11-25T07:13:49.111-08:00Can EGO ever know of itself? The 'real' consciousness?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Note: This is an extract from the blogger's book,( pages 48,49,50 and 51) 'Is Reason a sense organ? A super-mind above the known mind?( book can be searched by title from Google, or from Amazon.com)<br />The author attempts to analyze, whether true knowledge or insight into existential reality ever possible for man. Has nature instilled any special knowing mechanism in man to undertake this exercise? Can Ego, man's usual entity in the world, 'transcend' itself and turn a better knowing entity?<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<b><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";">How
does Ego know of itself? The possibility of multiple ENTITIES within man,
the knowing subject! (Is TRANSCENDING self beyond EGO possible?)</span></u></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "georgia"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";">We, humans,</span><span style="font-family: georgia;"> are conscious
of our own unique entities among other similar entities. How has nature ensured
this self-awareness? Who is the subject within, that perceives its own 'self', as an
objective entity?</span><span class="apple-converted-space" style="font-family: georgia;"> </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">What entity existed within Emmanuel Kant that
had made him capable of observing the PHENOMENAL nature of the mind, while
remaining within the limitations of the mind that he found? How can an eye know of itself, and a mind observe itself?</span><b style="font-family: georgia;"> </b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Kant's brilliant act of observation that the mind cannot cross the barrier of
PHENOMENA was definitely NOT within the limit of man's thinking faculty that he
himself had observed and admitted. Obviously, Kant had transcended himself into
a different entity other than his EGO, to make such an observation. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">He talked
about transcending man’s experiences. But what really takes place in the act of the self, 'transcending' itself?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Reason as
a faculty cannot observe such hidden relations beyond the PHENOMENA while it’s
in the possession of the EGO. Hence, this study would like to propose that man can
transcend himself as altered 'entities', which uses REASON as a distinct organ,
for acquiring knowledge, in ways different from the usual subject-object method
of the mind, and its owner, the EGO!</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";">This process of humans developing from
the body only entity in the beginning, (animals live in the same sphere even
today) to an EGO centered entity today (a stepping up from the body-centered
stage) and the just observed ability of few select humans transcending themselves
into yet another newer ENTITY with wider realms of knowing, is indicative of
the final destiny, and possibilities that await humankind</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";">. </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Reason
could find itself to be a potential organ in the possession of such transcended
entities for gathering knowledge in a manner unfamiliar to the mind. Like the
eyes observing some truth and describing it, Reason too, in its capacity as a
SENSE faculty could simply watch and describe what it observes, forming new
dimensions to the act of gaining knowledge. Here the classical method of
acquiring knowledge by the mind and then sharing it with others would
naturally take a beating. </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";">When mankind as a whole realizes
such a possibility of transcending oneself beyond the Ego level, acceptance of
knowledge gained through the new medium would also gain larger mainstream
approval.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";">As we have discussed, objective
realities are widely 'shared' subjective observations or inferences. Sharing with others
makes a real difference. Hence, when the possibility of man transcending himself to higher stages of knowledge is shared in the mainstream world, what
awaits man is a new world, with newer relations with each other, sans the
(selfish) obsessions of the EGO. Such transcending could be understood as
the first sign of a new spirituality for any human.</span><br />
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><br /></span>
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><b><u>A new social order is very well possible</u></b></span><br />
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><b><u><br /></u></b></span>
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";">A 'new social order' where everyone gains a new self-image ( sense of self) and everyone behaving in an altogether new way with everyone else is in the offing.</span><br />
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><br /></span>
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";">A new society might not be possible with innovative laws, new economic and political systems, etc, enforced from outside, but it is possible if individuals change themselves in the above 'spiritual' manner. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: georgia;"><u><b>If Reason is accepted as a 'sense faculty' and man starts living with it in his transcended state as explained above, a new world certainly will emerge. </b></u></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";">In short, we could put
it this way for more clarity, that Reason, when used by the ENTITY </span><br />
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";">-EGO- gives
out only PHENOMENAL reality. But when the unit, human, transcends himself by
discarding the ownership of the EGO, he becomes a different entity altogether,
who could use Reason as his NATIVE faculty for gaining knowledge. In this mode,
Reason acts like any other sense faculty, illustrating the depths of the issue
that one seeks. This was how great humans of the past achieved coming-out often with astonishing findings pertaining to
their fields of study.</span><br />
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";"><br /></span>
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";">The task of sharing such findings with their
fellow humans and the world at large is a greater task than the former. Here, such exceptional humans have to use LOGIC, the art, and science of associating his base findings with an
already existing truth (universals) and then explaining the relation of his
findings with such universal truths, to convert the finding into an acceptable
law. Here, he uses logic to convert his subjective vision into a 'collective
subjectivity', or an objective truth in the newly acquired status.</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "georgia"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";">Not only Emmanuel Kant, but many other great souls like him had succeeded
in transcending their selves to higher realms for coming out with fantastic
observations and conclusions. The great scientist Albert Einstein had said as follows, after the public’s acceptance of Quantum mechanics:<b> </b></span><br />
<span lang="EN-GB" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #222222; font-family: "georgia";"><br /></span>
<span lang="EN-GB" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #222222; font-family: "georgia";">"</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics" title="Quantum mechanics"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #0645ad;">Quantum
mechanics</span></a></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; font-family: "georgia";"> is very
impressive. </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; font-family: "georgia";">But an ‘inner voice’ tells me that it is not
the real thing. The theory produces a good deal
but hardly brings one closer to the secrets of the old one. I am at all events
convinced that He (God) does not play dice".<span style="color: #222222;"> </span></span><br />
<span lang="EN-GB" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; font-family: "georgia";"><span style="color: #222222;"><br /></span></span>
<span lang="EN-GB" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; font-family: "georgia";"><span style="color: #222222;">This inner voice was definitely not from his usual
mind, a prisoner behind the walls of 'PHENOMENA', but his transcended SELF
could use Reason as his native knowledge gaining organ. This claim doesn't mean, that whatever one infer with his REASON faculty will be absolute truth. But when such versions of many humans become part of our language and discussion platform, it offers a better epistemological source for us. </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #222222; font-family: "georgia";">As
said above, raising oneself above the EGO realm of knowledge is the primary
step towards a universal spirituality. It will happen with every seeker of truth
either today or tomorrow. It can also be observed that the PHENOMENAL veil on
existence as a whole, as a single object, gets at least partially removed when
one ceases to be an ego entity in the above sense. The very realization that the ego sees only ‘phenomenon’, enables one to get free of its catch.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; font-family: "georgia";">One starts getting enabled to live a life closer to
the 'IN ITSELF' way, that nature has intended it to be. </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";">From the above observed
subject-object principle for the emergence of entities, we have learned how Ego
gains ENTITY on the principle of 'ownership' of experiences, besides the
strength of the existence of similar entities around, which is based on the simple logic of ‘YOU ARE, HENCE I AM'. Fichte called this process of the emergence of EGOS, by the name "INTERSUBJECTIVITY'.</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "georgia"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";">But how is a human able to
perceive his own ego as an external object, and learn about its features and
characteristics as per the questions we have raised earlier? For objective
observation, there should be a subject, existing external to the object. Who is
such a subject here? After the elevation of the science of Psychology to a
certain level of acceptability among other sciences, Freud's Ego concept has,
however, gained some kind of a scientific sanctity. But this existential
question of what 'self' of man perceives EGO as an object has not yet gained
any popularity among philosophers and psychologists. Though religions and
spiritualists attribute this role to the human SOUL, more a non-worldly concept, the scientific world is silent on this subject. ( perhaps, out of contempt?)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";">Every one of us is
aware of this hidden self within, who often watch our social 'self’ (ego) as a
separate entity. Often there arise internal conversations between these
two internal entities or selves, known as self-talk. Most of our 'thinking' act is such conversations (or self-talk) between these two different selves within.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";">The keen observer must
have noticed that such conversations are always initiated by this mystery self,
not the EGO because the ego is not even capable of perceiving any object beyond
the realm of the external senses. Hence, this one is definitely a self, located above the Ego, which relates itself to realities beyond the sense world. This
hidden self is an entity that grows out from the ego, like the youth-stage
grows out of man's adolescent stage. As a child is absolutely unable to grasp
the intricacies of his own youth-stage or adolescent stage, Ego too is unable
to know its next stage, namely the ‘SELF’. It seems a natural internal
development in every man's internal life, like a youth turning into a middle-aged man of wisdom, naturally in the due course of life.</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "georgia"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";">Hence, the practice of
philosophy and other pursuits of knowledge in treating humans as a universal
passive OBSERVER, demands rethinking.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>The
two different entities within man make two different observers, and subjects.
The second one is located at some realms outside the phenomena, hence it is
able to observe EGO and its realm of experience as mere phenomena.</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "georgia"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";">Furthermore, in the ultimate analysis, it becomes evident that any form of
knowledge is possible only as SUBJECTIVE impressions of some kind of ENTITIES.
These impressions serve the purpose of mere MATERIAL for constituting these
ENTITIES. </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "georgia"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";">The 'in itself' reality is,
ultimately that of the RELATION among the entities. Ultimate reality is not a
THING, or an OBJECT, or a SCIENTIFIC FORMULA. It can only be a RELATION, the
ultimate EMOTION that glues existence together. The reason, man’s mysterious sense
organ is capable of receiving or say, SENSING such existential emotions
directly, when nature so wishes or the transcended entity of man seeks it out
from the source of existence. Remember, at such moments, when a human opens up to
receive extra phenomenal signals, he is not a typical EGO, but a transcended
entity, a non-participant in the phenomenal world, at least temporarily. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";">It could be sensibly believed that
Nature/God has a special interest in humans developing into such stages of ‘sensing’
the emotional content in existence, considering the extreme urge for truth inherent in
human beings. As we have already observed, the urge for scientific pursuits is
also nothing but an urge for knowing the ultimate truth. The rest in routine
life are all ‘phenomena’, serving the purpose of catering to the above main
objective of existence, the emergence of a primary entity, ego. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";">As detailed in the blog link: </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";"><a href="http://thewhyquestionofexistenceanswered.blogspot.in/">http://thewhyquestionofexistenceanswered.blogspot.in/</a></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";"> an element of CREATIVE CHOICE is self-evident in every aspect of existence. The design of the leaf of a papaya plant
could have been a thousand and one other designs and shapes. The hexagonal
shape of the bee-hive could have been spherical, or square! These design choices
explain no logical relation with any evolutionary necessity, hence, these self-evident elements of creative-choice point towards an emotional content in the scheme of
existence. It points towards a universal MIND, which is conscious of
itself. </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "georgia"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Humans might possess special 'experience buds' within him to relish such
future experiences of this existential emotion; however, one could safely
presume that this occurs at evolutionary maturity in the future!</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";">Authored by: Abraham J. Palakudy</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";">He is a researcher and seeker into subjects like Mind&Reason, Metaphysics, Spirituality, self, and world, and also Polity and democracy </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";">Twitter: Voice of Philosophy@jopan1</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";">His profile and other blogs: https://www.blogger.com/profile/14249415589712707293</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
</div>
VOICE OF PHILOSOPHYhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14249415589712707293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4134619545053363908.post-52050283337346810932015-10-23T08:14:00.000-07:002017-08-19T08:53:33.832-07:00<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<b><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">The logical inevitability of a cosmic predilection behind life and existence</span></u></b><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<u><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #ff6600; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">The self evident element of creative CHOICE in nature</span></u><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">Bee hives, whether in African forests or in the Indian villages, have hexagonal pockets for storing honey. Does the brain of the bee species is wired with the geometrical figure of hexagon?</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">Similar cases of uniform, but mysterious life and behaviour patterns in the animal kingdoms are abundant. The closely woven nests of the weaver bird, or the tortoise siblings that hatch out only during a rain so that it could easily flow with water up to the sea - -the astonishing wiring of the life forms always tease human reason to think beyond the evolution theory. The hexagonal shape of the bee-hive or the closely woven nest of the weaver bird may not fit any easy story to link it with the ‘survival’ necessity, or one of its adaptive techniques.</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"> </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #ff6600; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">An element of creative ‘CHOICE’ from the part of nature is self evident in all these cases.</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"> </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">The shape of the bee hive could have been triangular or plain spherical, and the shape of the nest of weaver bird could have been different in different continents!</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">If the root of existence is inorganic matter and its complex manifestations, we may have to stumble a bit for explaining the above element of creative choice, a not likely property of the dead matter. It definitely looks like the property of some kind of a ‘mind’ form. </span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<b><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">The hidden directives behind human instincts and emotions</span></u></b><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">We may be able to explain most of the animal drives and instincts as pure biological necessity - - -like territorial and mating related fights, fierce protective instinct towards the offspring, their food storing behaviour etc. . But when the same thought line is applied to explain all aspects of human behaviour, one stumbles at various junctures.</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">At some point of time, man seems to have totally departed from his animal ways. Was it a departure towards the direction of turning into a SUPERMAN in the ladder of evolution?</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">The most standing out development from the animal stage was his acquiring a ‘notional entity too’ other than the usual physical entity of animals. Ego lives in the notional worlds created by itself. Unlike the physical world, which can be said universal for every one, these notional worlds are subjective for every Ego. Hence, one can say that such notional world lives in man, than man lives in such worlds !</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">Though animals also are blessed with unique personalities, acquiring special mystery instincts for such notional entities was a marked difference. Some of such instincts that man’s ego entity has developed are:</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; text-indent: -.25in;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">a)</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-size: 7.0pt;"> </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-size: 7.0pt;"> </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">Glorification of such self</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; text-indent: -.25in;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">b)</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-size: 7.0pt;"> </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-size: 7.0pt;"> </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">The urge to excel</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; text-indent: -.25in;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">c)</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-size: 7.0pt;"> </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-size: 7.0pt;"> </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">The urge to expand</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; text-indent: -.25in;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">d)</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-size: 7.0pt;"> </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-size: 7.0pt;"> </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">The urge to seek order</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">Before briefly looking at each of the above mystery drives of man’s notional self, one is compelled to admit and realize that these drives have nothing much to do with his mere survival needs.</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<b><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">Glorification drive of ego</span></u></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">: Like the gravity energy of earth and other heavenly bodies, man has this ferocious, irrepressible inner pull of his self-hood. He feels utterly responsible to safe-guard, as well as to glorify his entity as a person. If his external circumstances do not put him down too much, he always sense a kind of divinity about himself. This drive is what makes him go for heroic efforts in wars, sports activities, self-sacrifices to save other’s lives etc. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: blue; font-family: "arial"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><b>This particular trait of EGO is what urges man to control others</b></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><b><span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">; leadership urge included. Leadership urge is there in </span>every one<span style="font-size: 10pt;">, but methods are very different. While for </span>some one<span style="font-size: 10pt;"> it is sharing what one knows and helping others also to develop and improve, for some others it is imposing one’s ways upon others by force. </span>The second type many a times end-up in making tyrants<span style="font-size: 10pt;">, or religious fundamentalists, whose idea of </span>self mounts<span style="font-size: 10pt;"> in such way that, he or his group wanted to </span>bring-in<span style="font-size: 10pt;"> the entire world under their control, submission and total hegemony.</span></span></b><span style="color: #222222; font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<b><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #ff6600; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">Natures plan behind such tendencies in some men might be the awakening of the subdued ones; when oppression becomes unbearable, such people always react, even at the cost violent wars, violence and even massive blood-shed and revolution. Lesson world and mankind must learn from such frequently observed phenomena in history is that, never ever put other men and groups under excessive control and submission ! History is bright proof that, every tyrant and oppressive leaders in history had met defeat and destruction, and FREEDOM and <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">LIBERTY</st1:place></st1:city> were the winners always !</span></b><b><span style="color: #ff6600; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; tab-stops: 165.75pt;">
<b><span style="color: #ff6600; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">This often takes its extreme negative course also. Suicides are such negative acts, where one’s will to live becomes zero.This negative course of Ego is what often takes the 'terrorism' and criminal route. Instead of blaming 'own self' for one's sorrowful state, many a time, the blame falls on 'others' and the 'world'as a whole. Such people are carefully chosen and targetted today by terror organizations and leaders, for achieving their special needs. These victims have already lost sense of difference between life and death, so directing them to be suicide 'bomber' etc becomes very easy! This gives them a temporary 'meaning' and 'sense of purpose' in 'life'! In our existing Capitalistic order, we all know that almost 70% of the population do not enjoy 'belongingness' to the mainstream world. So, chances of individuals losing meaning in life are simply massive! </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<b><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">Urge to excel:</span></u></b><b><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"> </span></u></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">Though this is closely related to the drive to glorify, the difference is all about excelling over one’s fellow beings. One always experience the inner pull to be better than the other. Competition of all sorts can be understood as manifestations of this particular urge.</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<b><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">Urge to expand:</span></u></b><b><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"> </span></u></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">This special drive is what compels him to go for artistic pursuits, an urge to seek one’s hidden colours and feathers. This is an urge to go beyond the known. Hence, writers, painters of repute, singers, and even philosophers and scientists live in worlds beyond the very grasp and reach of ordinary men.</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<b><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">Love urge as the manifestation of the urge to expand</span></u></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"> </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">:</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">Even man’s urge to venture into love relations can also be understood as a manifestation of this enigmatic drive. Though materialistic world defines and understood love only as a prelude to reproductive instinct of man, it has many yet not identified dimensions. The partners in love often experience an expansion of their known selves - -both finds themselves in never before known colours, freedom, and loosened and un-inhibited behaviour patterns. What they experience is their newer selves, unimaginably different from their previously familiar forms. The ‘other’ here becomes a special tunnel, a fascinating channel for the one in true love to know much more about himself. Reality is all about what the other perceives as real, here one’s entity as an unknown enigma to him self. Until now, what one thought about himself was mere fiction. These fictions becomes real when one’s love partner acts as the one who share, and co-experience such fiction, and transform it into the realm of reality!</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">The more the partners are able to express and expand their selves in the love act, the more expanded become their entities in the matter of notional content. Such enhanced selves when come in contact with the outside world, the colour and nature of such interactions also becomes very different, adding up to the total personality of the person.</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><br /></span> <span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">We need to seriously study what exactly was Hegal's idea on Spirit; if my understanding is right, he also was hinting at the same theory, ie. God created the whole for finding self-expression of Himself! We might be able to peep into the mystery WHY question,linking all these ideas!</span><br />
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><br /></span> <span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">A Stanford University page on Hegel has this statement on the above: "</span><span style="color: #1a1a1a; font-family: serif; font-size: 16.5px;">The peculiarity of Hegel’s form of idealism, on this account, lies in his idea that the mind of God becomes actual only via its particularization in the minds of “his” finite material creatures. Thus, in our consciousness of God, we somehow serve to realize his </span><em style="color: #1a1a1a; font-family: serif; font-size: 16.5px;">own</em><span style="color: #1a1a1a; font-family: serif; font-size: 16.5px;"> self-consciousness, and, thereby, his own perfection"</span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt;"><br /></span> <span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt;">Try any hard, it will be difficult to offer a better explanation than what Hegel had offered.It makes real sense! </span><br />
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><br /></span> <span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">Among other modern philosophers,only the American one,C.S.Pierce was found recognizing the existential relevance of LOVE;He says in his essay 'Evolutionary Love',:</span><br />
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><br /></span> <span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"> " Love,recognizing germs of loveliness in the hateful,gradually warms it into life,and makes it lovely.that is the sort of evolution which every careful student of my essay <i>'the law of mind' </i>must see that <i>synechism </i>calls for....growth comes only from the ardent impulse to fulfill another's highest impulse" (He offers explanation to St.John's philosophy of love as sacrifice)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">Hence, the most enigmatic emotion of LOVE is truly a manifestation of man’s mystery urge to expand by self expression...</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<b><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">The urge to seek order:</span></u></b><b><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"> </span></u></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">In the degree of specialty and mystery, this drive to seek ORDER tops other ones we have already familiarized.</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">What saw man’s civilizational and knowledge wise rising up the present level of life was predominantly due to the most mysterious urge of seeking ORDER hidden in man. Though man understands this urge as his ‘faculty of Reason’, a special faculty that, according to him, distinguishes himself from the animal kingdom, he is yet to fully realize all its yet unknown dimensions and features. It is without doubt, a seat, or a sensor of existential ORDER that nature has kept hidden in man.</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">What guided him and helped him to make his innumerable theories, inventions and discoveries was this sense of Reason. It helped him to go from the signs of the ‘order’ he has found in nature, to the other hidden realms of ‘order’, based on the assurance provided to him by the previously seen mystery sensor of order.</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">What other faculty helps man to relate a past relation or a sequence with a present complex fact, and be convinced of its truthfulness? Reasoning is nothing but this creative faculty of man in relating a current fact with an already proven past relation or sequence. This seat of order has its own independent sense, that many a times it warns him of truth and falsehood even without any past precedents!Otherwise, how does man now fully realize that despite all his unimaginable scientific discoveries, his knowledge about life and existence is incomplete? Or, he is still short of a unified theory for all his known forms of energy?</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">Though man is yet to admit anything beyond dead matter at the root of everything that exists, he had no hesitation to claim ownership of this mystery faculty of Reason for himself - -something he would never succeed to explain as a property of matter.</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<b><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">The hidden directive of this seat of order:</span></u></b><b><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"> </span></u></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">Reason often acts like an instinct, say, like the instinct of sex. It compels man to seek order and consistency in whatever he does, especially in the fulfillment of the other directives of the ego that we have seen above.</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"> He gets restless when faced with disorder. Injustice in front of his eyes forces him to intervene till justice is prevailed. A photo-frame tilted to a side on the wall disturbs him. Beauty of any kind, whether it is music or an architectural marvel, or a golden sunset, relaxe him. Reason forces revolutionaries to revolt and bring-in freedom. It makes spiritualists to seek truth, ('order' about life and existence) and scientists to seek answers for the same questions in a different way.</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"> </span><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: magenta; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">Yes…this faculty of Reason works on principles similar to the other instincts of man - -it makes him act, or seek answers in a particular direction.</span></b><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">The PRISM like function of Reason keep on splitting any newly arrived conclusion into its constituent further possibilities and sub-ideas, thus upsetting the balance and the truth of the previously arrived conclusions. This makes man restless again and again for seeking further truths. This goes on as a unchanging process, like the natural direction of rivers.</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"> </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: red; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">This process act as if it has a pre-set direction !</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">This specific directive of Reason, when read with the other above observed urges of man’s Ego, compels our sense of Reason to conclude that all these are devices to carry man towards some mystery goal/direction ? This mystery seat of order relentlessly convey to mind that without having a ‘why’ dimension for life and existence, the ‘how’ dimension can not be explained in totality. Hence, such a directive, if closely analyzed, lead us to the conclusion that it wants to drag man out of the four walls of his ego,and seek realities outside its closed domain.</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">The stand alone reality of the ‘ego’ is like a cubicle in the free space. It has only its observed realities to define itself, with which it's Reason domain is not contended with. Reason compels man to place his self at more truthful, more consistent and more logically acceptable platforms. Hence the eternal search of man for ultimate reality with his scientific, as well as religious pursuits!</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<b><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">The inevitability of a 'cosmic emotion' behind existence:</span></u></b><b><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"> </span></u></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">Properties of matter can be there without the involvement of any emotional content. Oxygen atoms when united with required number of hydrogen atoms, water is the result. It is a stand alone law within the bigger, wider reality of existence. We can not apply the certainty of such isolated laws to infer on the nature of the whole scheme of existence, as the latter includes the kind of very distinct and clear 'mystery directives' in human psyche that we have observed above. </span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><br />
</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><br />
</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><br />
</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">The element of ‘choice’ that one observes in these directives as well as in many other aspects of existence, has already been explained in above paragraphs. Moreover, the element of the ‘directive’ that we have seen, is what really distinguishes a living entity from a purely ‘inorganic’ substance. A living micro organism has the directive to multiply itself, resist the forces that aims to annihilate it etc. whereas a pure inorganic entity do not have any such natural directive. At microscopic level, to distinguish a life form from a pure inorganic form is a really difficult philosophical problem for scientists ! When one add this 'directive' aspect of life form also to the context, solving this problem would easier. </span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">The element of ‘choice’, that often looks ‘creative’ in nature, can not be a property of inorganic matter, as such a property, even if science forcibly attribute to it, can not stand the test of the ‘sense’ of Reason that we have clearly seen above. It violently revolts when asked to accept such inconsistent forms of relations.</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">Hence, here man’s reason has no other option but to imagine and attribute some kind of an emotional element too in the scheme of existence, besides its natural forces and energy sources that science had already identified. Without attributing such an emotional content, it is impossible to unite our known stories of science to explain the phenomenon of existence sensibly. </span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><br /></span> <span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;"><b><u>Is our faculty of Reason an internal 'sense-organ', that Existence has instilled in man, to 'sense' her 'predisposition', the ultimate stuff of the world?</u></b></span></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;"><b><u><br /></u></b></span></span> <span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">We have said above, that Faculty of Reason acts as an instinct. But, if inferred by all the might of our inherent sense, we will have to conclude that, yes, our faculty of Reason is an 'internal sense organ', specifically instilled by Existence for man 'sense' the ultimate stuff of her, her predisposition, her emotional predilection!!</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;"><br /></span></span> <span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;"><span style="color: #222222;">Kant was very specific; man's external sense organs give him only 'phenomena', not the 'in-itself' reality about the world. Though he said, he is able to grasp this 'in-itself' reality by 'intuition', he had not elaborated it to make a system of it. By every Logic imaginable by man, it does not make sense at all to believe, that Existence had left us here only with our 'phenomena'making device, </span>our mind<span style="color: #222222;">. She must have definitely kept a door opened </span>for<span style="color: #222222;"> us to know her!! Knowing her means, knowing her </span><b><span style="color: #660000;">emotional disposition</span></b><span style="color: #222222;">, not an EQUATION about her structural design.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;"> </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"> Though science is reluctant to identify her stand as a 'dogma' about the inorganic base of life and existence, it can always keep its doors open towards above possibilities. Moreover, science is not all about her already found laws –it is all about her openness about all new source of knowledge. That was her original predisposition, her essence!</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-bottom: 12.0pt;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">This propositions, when read with the propositions that contained at our write-up on Reason at blog spot :</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"> </span><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><a href="http://thesparkleofhumanreason.blogspot.com/"><span style="color: #888888; text-decoration: none;">http://thesparkleofhumanreason.blogspot.com/</span></a>, and </span></b><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><a href="http://philosopherskorner.blogspot.in/"><span style="color: #888888; text-decoration: none;">http://philosopherskorner.blogspot.in/</span></a><b> </b>, will</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"> </span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">give us a very different 'wholesomeness' about man’s life and existence.</span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">The 'why life' and 'Existence' question gets a very sensible answer here; Phenomena was devised by Nature as the 'space' or the 'world' of the Ego. Its role is that of a womb, or placenta.It is meant to carry a fetus, a future fully realized, a fully conscious man! Once he reaches this intellectual or spiritual stage, like a child who abandon his childishness once he attains adulthood, abandons it, and start living like a fully matured being, fully conscious of his miraculous status in Existence! This development stages are explained in the following link:http://metaphysicsofthehumansoul.blogspot.in/2013/<br />
</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><br />
<br />Abraham J.Palakudy </span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><br /></span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">He is an ardent seeker and researcher in areas like Mind and Reason, philosophy, Spirituality, and polity</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">E.mail:<st1:personname w:st="on">ajoseph1@rediffmail.com</st1:personname></span><br />
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">His profile and other blogs:https://www.blogger.com/profile/14249415589712707293 <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; tab-stops: 190.5pt;">
<b><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.0pt;">Twitter : Voice of Philosophy@jopan1 </span></b><b><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br />
</span></b><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br />
</span></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">Ps: His self-published book ' Is reason a sense organ ? A super-mind above the known mind? (amazon.com link: </span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B008NOEE9I"><span style="color: #888888; text-decoration: none;">http://www.amazon.com/dp/B008NOEE9I</span></a> </span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;"> </span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.0pt;">touches how man could sense, or get to know the emotional predisposition ,or predilections of nature/God.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</div>
VOICE OF PHILOSOPHYhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14249415589712707293noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4134619545053363908.post-74916667580103320292015-03-31T11:23:00.001-07:002016-12-27T01:48:22.708-08:00The rationale of 'being' : The existentially inevitable principle of 'duality' explained.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<b><u>The rationale behind the well evident DUALITY in existence ( that between God and knowing beings, objects and observer etc.) </u></b><br />
<br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: red;">Note:</span></b> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">This post is an extract from author's book,titled, " Is reason a sense-organ? A super-mind above the known-mind?' available at Amazon.com link: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=book+%27is+reason+a+sense+organ%2F" style="text-align: justify;">http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=book+%27is+reason+a+sense+organ%2F</a>, section-2, page 46, 47, 48</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 340.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b><u>Quote</u></b>:</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia";">In order to achieve momentum of existence, perceiving entities (subjects) and plethora of objects were inevitable existential necessities. Similar to the physical laws that Science recognize, she ( science) has not yet focused her attention into this field; as to what could have been the system, or nature's basic 'organization-principle' behind the emergence of knowing entities in the world ! If she at least recognize this area or realm as a real, and another independent area of nature's plan and organization, half the battle of understanding life and existence would have been won !</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia";"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: "georgia";">The original existential ONENESS could have been </span><span style="font-family: "georgia";">got separated into independent synthetic ENTITIES, who formed the perceiving entities (or SUBJECTS) </span><span style="font-family: "georgia";">like man, was possible only through the above seen scheme of every subject turning into natural 'objects' too, before the similarly ordained ‘other’ subjects ! Of course this proposition might demand a good-amount of abstract imagination, to grasp its basis principle... </span></div>
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";"> </span>
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";"><br /></span></span></div>
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";"> </span><br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";"><br /></span></span></div>
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";"> <div style="text-align: left;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";">This drama of DUALITY was an inevitable essential of the scheme of existence.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";">Devising the scheme of the 'Phenomenal' world was a highly imaginative ( creative)<b> </b>choice of nature<b>,</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>for the purpose of the emergence of SYNTHETIC entities, like man, animals and plants.</span></div>
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia";">The original existential unity might have been a suffocating dead SILENCE ! A unity of that sort is not </span><span style="font-family: "georgia";">capable of knowing of itself. To attain the very status of BEING, and its momentum and life, that primordial UNITY ( or oneness) had to be transformed into a DUALITY. The greatest existential urge, the hidden universal emotion, it seems, was that of letting itself known!</span></div>
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";">How could the primordial unity, or the 'oneness' be divided for meeting such an existential purpose? The scheme of PHENOMENA was the answer. Phenomena could produce synthetic entities, which could perceive each other <b>as entities different from them</b>, and give birth to <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">INDEPENDENCE</st1:place></st1:city><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>of the ENTITIES, though SYNTHETIC. (meaning, without any core substance, but entities evolving on the principle of INTERSUBJECTIVITY).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";">The duality principle of existence more explained </span></u></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "georgia"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";">We have seen above that DUALITY was nature's scheme for the emergence of ENTITIES, because, entities were the first necessity for knowing. We have seen above that an object gains status of an ENTITY only when a subject perceives it.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">It is a mutually provided status, and a central aspect of the scheme of existence.</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia";">Here, a keen observer could see some truth in what the great philosopher Bishop Berkeley had claimed: matter cannot exist without a perceiving entity. What he might have meant was the inevitability of the DUALITY in existence ! But world did not understand him properly, and laughed at him citing the reality of every object int the world irrespective of the need of any observer or perceiving entity. Dr. Johnson famously kicked a milestone and showed his badly hurt foot in proof of the opposite reality ! He and the world took the serious existential law in its laughably naive sense. </span></div>
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";"><br /></span></div>
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";"> </span><span class="apple-style-span" style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span>
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span class="apple-style-span" style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">A somewhat naive example for the truthfulness of this proposition is the sure and certain existence of millions of stars, and even galaxies of stars, at unknown, remote corners of our universe! Their existence is equal to NON-EXISTENCE for us, as we do know them in real terms! </span></div>
<span class="apple-style-span" style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> <span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "georgia"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"></span></span><br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span class="apple-style-span" style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "georgia"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><br /></span></span></div>
<span class="apple-style-span" style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "georgia"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"> <div style="text-align: left;">
Many present unknown mysteries about our universe are equal to NON-EXISTENT for us, on the same principle. Something gains the status of an object or reality only when some-other perceiving entities give them their meaning by the virtue, or type of their relation to it.</div>
</span></span><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Such attributing a status of reality does not mean that the observer has known the object in its noumenal reality.( the 'in-itself' category of Kant) Such category of knowing, by the pre-set knowing mechanism of such beings was called by Kant as 'phenomena'. </span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";"><b>Nature has used this scheme as the working principle for the phenomenal world. </b></span><span style="font-family: "georgia";">The mind organ was schemed for the emergence of ENTITIES, so that they perceive phenomena. As we have seen above, in the example of new born babies that their EGO takes birth as and when they start having their own experiences.</span><span class="apple-converted-space" style="font-family: "georgia";"> </span><span style="font-family: "georgia";">It is not the other way; ego born first, and then he starts experiencing objects and events. The objects and experiences give birth to one’s entity.</span><b style="font-family: Georgia;"> </b></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">A physical body was the first essentiality for the emergence of such entities, for achieving tangibility.</span></div>
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><br /></span></div>
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"> </span>
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";">Drives like hunger, thirst, sexual urge for procreation, automatic urges for excretion etc. were devised to ensure its automatic working. The next essentiality was the emergence of the BODY of the SPIRIT, as the ‘knower’.Ego’s emergence was devised to achieve this end. We have seen how ego emerges on the principle of the OWNERSHIP of one’s sense experiences.</span></div>
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Thus, when a complete entity is born, his SPIRITUAL or noumenal urges originates to take the entity </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">to the higher realms. His sense of Reason urges the entity to look for higher realities to link him with his IN ITSELF source, thus achieving the ‘ends’ of the scheme of existence. It is equal to ‘nothingness’ in the absence of ‘knowing’ entities in existence.</span></div>
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Obviously, our science’s attempt to know about the physical universe without some insight into </span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;">such possible schemes of existence would be like an attempt by monkeys to understand an </span>air-craft’s<span style="color: #222222; font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;"> spare part that landed in the jungle; without first knowing about the existence of an aircraft, whatever speculative theories they make will not help them to really KNOW the object. </span></div>
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">From the above examples and arguments, we have no way but to conclude that the emergence of KNOWING entities was the essence of existential purpose, because, reality is a mutually </span>provided<span style="font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;"> state, between subjects and objects.</span><span style="color: red; font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;"> </span></div>
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span><span style="color: #222222;"></span></span>
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><span style="color: #222222;"><br /></span></span></div>
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><span style="color: #222222;"> </span></span><br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">We find it difficult to accept the truth of this existential scheme because the observer here is not the single ego of you and me, but the impersonal SPIRIT of the scientific community that we represent. Such spirits are capable of possessing man, and altering his thoughts, stand and behaviour.</span></span></span></div>
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><span style="color: #222222;"> <div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">For example, it was such an impersonal spirit that had possessed German citizens during Hitler's regime, and made them join the mission of their leader, in annihilating the Jewish community! Ego is habitual of both being self-possessed, as well as getting trans-migrated in others, as alien SPIRITS.This feature of Ego could alter the identity of objects and realities of man as an individual, and that of the world, as larger communities. </span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></span><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Posted by: Abraham J. Palakudy</span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">He is an ardent seeker&researcher, in areas like Mind,Reason,philosophy,Spirituality and Polity</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">contact him at:</span></span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">or; ajoseph1@rediffmail.com</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span> <span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Twitter: Voice of philosophy@jopan1</span></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">His profile and other blogs at:https://www.blogger.com/profile/14249415589712707293</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
</div>
VOICE OF PHILOSOPHYhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14249415589712707293noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4134619545053363908.post-66107749384623146562015-03-27T09:33:00.001-07:002020-03-08T00:48:54.632-08:00How could we explain diseases,wars and tragedies in life ?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia";">( This is an extract from author's Amazon.com book, ' Is reason a sense-organ? A super-mind above the known-mind ?, posted with the intention of explaining the most crucial question or argument of those who buy only the scientific explanation of reality: How could death,diseases,wars and tragedies of life could be explained, if God, or the predilection of nature, or the 'whole' is kind and merciful ? - -link to the book's e.version is :</span><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B008NOEE9I" style="background-color: transparent; font-size: 12pt;">http://www.amazon.com/dp/B008NOEE9I</a>)</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<b><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";">The question of how ORIGINAL is man's FREE WILL!</span></u></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "georgia"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";">Coming back to man, his mind organ, which is specifically designed to know and deal with PHENOMENA, is instrumental in creating the ENTITY, or the OWNER figure, the EGO, as already seen earlier. When this synthetic OWNER of phenomenal experiences remains totally cut-off from all deeper sources of existence, life becomes a stand-alone affair for such subjects. </span><br />
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";"><br /></span> <span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";">It is the MIND of such synthetic OWNERS of life experiences that Kant had referred to as 'CLOSED' ( means, they could never catch-up with the 'in-itself' category of objects or reality) to the ‘in itself’ reality of the objects of the senses. Science too accepts only such a mind, as the exclusive instrument of knowing at the disposal of man.</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "georgia"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">The concept of FREE WILL of living beings seems limited to having a 'synthetic sense of ownership' for ones’ own actions, and its consequences. When the ownership itself is synthetic, how can his experiences be original, and substance-filled?</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";">He eats when hunger compels him, relieves himself of body wastes when specialized pressures tease him, seeks love and a sex partner when massive inborn urges disturb him, exercises his body when an urge to 'exert' reminds him to be on his toes, and finally, seeks truth, beauty and art compelled by the cravings of the internal sense of Reason ( please get to know of this unrecognized internal DRIVES of our faculty of reason from link: http://thesparkleofhumanreason.blogspot.in/)</span><br />
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";"><br /></span> <span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";"> It would be very interesting a subject to probe more, as to how much human act is the product of man's FREE WILL!</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "georgia"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";">But it seems, with the said synthetic ownership, when he cuts-itself off from his existential sources, he could be turning himself into a LAW UNTO HIMSELF, in the phenomenal realm, and God/Nature could have kept aside a separate system of law, based on CAUSE and EFFECT, to manage this kind of a show. Man's FREEWILL seems applicable only in its limited meaning, in this domain! </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "georgia"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";">Life's sorrowful experiences, its emotional and physical calamities and ups and downs appear CAUSE and EFFECT driven, or even purely accidental when looked at through the eyes of such synthetic self-holders. Hence, the uncertainties, and the personal and natural calamities in life are peculiar experiences of the individual EGOS, when they are trapped within the STAND-ALONE reality of its four walls! When it remains cut off from the spiritual source of existence, and within the dreaded walls of EGO, it has no choice but to experience such calamities as (being) real, in all its worldly meaning and severity! <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";">This life and death question of human life, the cause of its untold suffering and uncertainties has no other explanation than what has been depicted above! <b>The phenomenal realm is a totally cut-off (from the source of life and reality) synthetic realm, where the drama of life takes place for the majority of the men. </b>When man thinks that he, as his EGO, is the one and only entity and OWNER that EXPERIENCES life, the other controlling energies of existence back-off, thus making the realm under the mastery of the EGO!</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #222222; font-family: "georgia"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";"><br /></span> <span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";">But, it is a fact, that when man manages to free himself from the vicious catch of Ego, and attain some kind of oneness with existence, all the pains, as well as ecstasies of such persons are really felt and shared by mother nature ! She is as keen to get herself liberated from traumas of such entities as the victims themselves. Hence the miraculous recovery of spiritual individuals from serious issues faced in the realm of life.</span><br />
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";"><br /></span> <span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";">The force behind existence is NOT a mathematical-coldness as Science believes. Life has 'sense' and relevance at the level of every individual.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";">posted by: Abraham J. Palakudy </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia";">He is an ardent seeker and researcher, in subjects like Mind&Reason, Philosophy, Spirituality and polity</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia";">contact: ajoseph1@rediffmail.com</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia";">Twitter: Voice of philosophy@jopan1</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia";"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia";">His profile and other blogs:https://www.blogger.com/profile/14249415589712707293</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "georgia";"><br /></span></div>
</div>
VOICE OF PHILOSOPHYhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14249415589712707293noreply@blogger.com3