Understanding 'Reason' as a SENSE ORGAN could solve the FIRST PRINCIPLE problem!

Understanding faculty of Reason a 'sense organ' like EYE,could solve the FIRST PRINCIPLE problem in philosophy ! It would make the matter simple.

Human sense organ of eye is basically a FACULTY. It senses one aspect of reality around us. Likewise, Reason senses the most central and fundamental aspect in existence, the ORDER inherent in it. Its domain,hence, naturally goes beyond PHENOMENA.

Accepting the existence of one's eye,or any other external organ, does not pose any serious philosophical question. When Reason is also taken as a similar internal sense organ,  the great question of FIRST PRINCIPLE in philosophy could be put to rest.

Dog's sense of smell is many times greater than any other animal. Man's sense of Reason is also, thus many times greater than that of any other living being ! He could extend it, even to have glimpses of reality beyond PHENOMENA.

In the following write-up, this theme has only been formally introduced. Greater stress of the blog is on explaining why PHENOMENAL REALM is instrumental in the creating ENTITIES, ie. MEN, the cosmic OBSERVERS.

 Our more dedicated work on Reason as a SENSE ORGAN, that senses inherent existential ORDER and CONSISTENCY is being completed, and would be posted as a blog shortly. 

 All intelligent men who happen to read the these blogs are sought to respond to the author, so that we all could together take this piece of knowledge to more useful heights for mankind.

Abraham Joseph
Founder secretary
www.conscienceofthesociety.com- a non-profit in India that stand for study on Reason.

A new study into the existential necessity of PHENOMENA , and the ever eluding 'IN-ITSELF' reality 

Preface

This is intended to be a brief, but central study, into understanding what human experience is, why nature has devised man's phenomenal realm, and an attempt to probe into the realm of 'THING IN-ITSELF as introduced by  Emmanuel Kant.

The study attempts to understand 'thing in itself' reality as the crux of man's metaphysical, as well as scientific quest. This was what man always wanted to know as pure knowledge, but still elusive.

Reason is introduced as an internal sense organ that senses ORDER and CONSISTENCY. Besides the role of ‘sensing’, it also exhibit a ‘craving’ for ORDER and CONSISTENCY, similar to the cravings exhibited by external sense organs - -tongue shows craving for certain tastes over others, ears prefer to hear  music like, orderly sounds, skin prefers soothing and comforting touch, and nose, fragrance to unpleasant odours.

A passive mind organ is not that experiences, but the ENTITY who uses the mind, the EGO. The study also introduces other transcended entities for man, who uses mind and reason in altered ways in order to escape the veil of PHENOMENA, and have glimpses into ‘in-itself’ reality.

A final attempt has been made to understand the existential PURPOSE. Why man has been locked behind the PHENOMENAL curtain ? Why doors towards ultimate reality is shut for Ego ?

Attempt has been made to realize the existential purpose of DUALITY - -mind and matter, subject- object, God/nature VS. the reality seeking entities etc. Man often is capable of TRANSCENDING his self, not his experience, and thus transform himself into a different level of existence and knowledge mode. 

A conclusion is drawn that the objects in nature, or the knowing entities are not things in themselves. If there exists an 'in itself' reality in existence, it is that of the RELATION that unites these objects and entities. This relation is what defines the existence of entities and objects. Without realizing the 'all uniting' RELATION, the 'existential glue' our knowledge about objects and entities would be incomplete. 

Part- 1

How does man make 'sense' of his experiences ?

This study wishes to  re-look at the classic concepts of 'sense experience', mind, Reason etc. as used by Emmanuel Kant, in order to have better clarity. His broad definition of 'experience' was meant for the knowledge that mind gathers through the medium of external senses. He says, 'pure knowledge' could be only that the faculty of Reason gathers by itself  'a priori',  that is, without the aid of the sense experience.

This study wishes to abandon these two basic assumptions altogether, as Reason has every 'reason' to be believed a SENSE ORGAN only, similar to our external sense organs.  (A detailed study is there in one of the following paragraphs.) The category it senses is ORDER and CONSISTENCY of the thought and premises, that mind originates, the way tongue senses the category of taste, ear that of sound, and skin that of touch.

This study wishes to understand EXPERIENCE also bit differently. It would like to mean experience in the lay man's term, ie. like what he would mean by 'experiencing' love, anger or depression. When his eye encounter a piece of rock, or ear hear a thunder, tongue taste an apple, it all need not be classified in the general category of EXPERIENCE. When one learns elementary mathematics of 2 plus 2 making 4, it is also not an experience, but could be in the lay man's term- learning. No other input of the sense organs, or a notional product of the mind like logical inference, need to be classified in the strict sense of EXPERIENCE.

Sense organs are like openings without doors. It remain open towards the world always, involuntarily. Only sleep, again that visits man involuntarily, keeps the doors of senses shut. It is man's mind, an organ that works on its own laws, decides what sense in-put is relevant for the unit man, and what not. Mind digests these inputs, like one physical digestive organs and system digests food intakes. But, like the choice of choosing one's food intake is often controllable by man, he has restricted freedom to choose what sense input he prefers over others, by the act of concentration, meditation etc.

This study wishes to classify only one's emotional encounters as real 'EXPERIENCE'. Here, the concept of  EXPERIENCE BUDS is introduced.

A rose, or a piece of rock need not be classified as an 'experience', but only a passing phenomenon for 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 mere supporting role as accessories for achieving the main purpose. Such emotions have its taste buds pre-fixed in the mind, so that man could make sense out of such experiences upon encountering those.

For example, when some one encounter 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 to support  relishing this very special emotion. There is no chance that he had acquired the knowledge of this experience through his senses, during his life time.

Similarly, when some one experience a direct attack on his self respect, and self-hood, from a fellow being, or from the collective institutions such as a State, the rage that develop 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 in the animal kingdom.

When closely observed, it appears that human mind makes sense of its such EXPERIENCES the way TONGUE makes sense of the different tastes, by its inbuilt TASTE-BUDS mechanism, as once mentioned above. Like human TONGUE can not experience a taste outside its BUDS range, mind also would not be able to make sense out of an 'experience'  that has no support of the 'experience bud'.

More on EXPERIENCE BUDS : the craving of the EXPERIENCES for satiation

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.

For an example, when a man experience the  ecstasy of LOVE, he is not making sense of each and every sensory input, but indirectly relishing the main category of the experience bud of LOVE.  A set of different sense inputs, such as that of touch, smell and taste constitute together to give man his experience of LOVE. This 'experience' buds look similar to the colour buds in the brain - - - various shades of Green, or say Red, go to the same location, to make sense the colour Green or Red.

Each experience bud constantly crave for its fulfillment too, it seems. Freud's notion of ID attains relevance here - -he mentioned Id as a seat of various inborn cravings. Cravings such as REVENGE, or DEPRESSION develop  as the result of  bruised, or chronically dissatisfied original cravings. These act like negative energies created, which could be neutralized, or extinguished only upon its finding some form of satiation.

The philosophic relevance of this proposition of pre-designed EXPERIENCE BUDS.

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 ' a priori' ( prior to experience) and how much is 'a posteriori'.(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 out to be classified as a POSTERIORI 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. Such routine objects of the external senses enter the realm of mind by the principle of 'association', and remain in memory in a subjective pictorial representation, or in WORD form, when the unit man learns language.

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 rise, as to how far faculties of our mind, including Reason could succeed in doing the job. 

Coming back to the EXPERIENCE buds, for a new born baby, the sense experience of the nipple of his mother's breast in his mouth, and the sight of the breast may be OBJECTS that he encounter 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 - -the sight kindles the pre-designed emotions in him. The object-breast is the same for newborn baby, and the lover, but it arouses different emotions in the two subjects. A mother deer is two different objects in this meaning, one for her calf, and the other for the predator, Lion. The emotions attached to the same object is different for the two different subjects.

We should safely assume that, in the mind of a human male, the images of female breast and her other beautifully curved body parts had been vaguely implanted by nature, hence the eternal appetite he has, to watch these objects, and the arousal followed by it. Likewise, the images of the prey's ( for example, that of a deer, in the minds of  
Lions )appetite arousing body parts and shapes must have been implanted in the minds of the predator, to make sense of such sights, arouse necessary passion , and compel him to go for the kill !

 The routine objects of the external sense organs have very little to do with man's 'emotional experiences, except its role  probably as mere instruments, or 'stimuli' in having emotional experiences. They collectively form materials for the sense world, that he associates his 'self' with. The emergence of the vital item of the PHENOMENA, man's entity as his EGO, takes place based on the principle; 'as the owner of the experiences he encounter' ,and as an 'object among the other routine objects around him'.

Life, after all is man's experiencing a series of EMOTIONS in the span of life . It has very less to do with the innumerable physical objects he come across in carrying out the life-process. It serves the purpose of only a general stage, or a canvas.

Every man can not be viewed as 'all similar', universal subject : The existential uniqueness of  observing ENTITIES.

The purpose of nature behind creation, or existence, seems the emergence of distinct ENTITIES, who could 'experience'. Fichte, Kant's student-criticizer had touched this theme in a different meaning. He said experiences are part of the 'self consciousness' of the EGO, ego being a product of the 'inter-subjectivity' process. This emergence of the 'Ego', the first synthetic entity who could EXPERIENCE, was the distinct goal of nature.

The unique experience realm of each EGO makes every man a distinct AGGREGATE - -an entity with a different sum total of past experiences. The status of such aggregate goes on changing every moment, as he is immersed in the pool of the world, that provides him experience. Hence, the act of experience is a DYNAMIC PROCESS for each ego, each moment. The event of experience, an alive interaction between the unique subject with his object, each time.

We shall see how the quality of the subject, and the quality of  his interaction alter the quality of the object, as well as the event of experience,  in a following portion of this study.

Knowledge, thus becomes subjective affair. It becomes objective science only when it is shared with 'others'. Hence, man's scientific knowledge is nothing but 'collective subjectivity' of mankind, not  absolute, stand alone knowledge.

The entire classic notions about KNOWLEDGE, man as a universal subject, experience as a stand alone event etc. should deserve the light of a thorough revision and review. Mind can not be seen as a 'passive organ' that experiences the world. Who experience ( in the verbal form) world is a creative entity, the owner of the mind organ. Every act of experience is, thus, a creative interaction of the subject with the object of the experience.In other words, the act of experience is DYNAMIC. 

This exceptional ability of man to creatively involve with his objects of the senses, and the events in life is detailed in bit more elaborately in one of the forthcoming portions of this study.

Mind and Reason were usually seen as one and the same, without distinctly differentiating their role and functions under such classic notions. In our new study, Reason is seen in the role of an internal SENSE ORGAN - -it senses ORDER, as one of its primary function. It does not offer any instant magic formula to arrive at truth, or ' a priori' knowledge, as the classic notions have projected. Kant was very specific about the impure knowledge that 'experience' provided by the Mind, and 'pure' knowledge that Reason gives 'a priori':  he says, 'and it is my task to answer the question how far reason can go, without the material presented, and the aid furnished by experience'(in the preface to the first edition)

Reason helps only to taste the 'order', or say 'consistency' between the universal premise one keeps, and the minor premises he has gathered for arriving at conclusions, or drawing temporary inferences, in the 'deductive' process. Reason applies itself in the PRISMATIC function, while handling the inductive process. It splits the given ray of thought into all its constituent sub thoughts, ideas and possibilities, and finally tests the truth of the inferred proposition. Reason, thus, does the act of SENSING the logical relation between the inferences and the available evidences. This logical relation is nothing but the ORDER, or consistency between the two. 

It is a specialized, inbuilt FACULTY, like the faculty of the TONGUE that differentiate tastes. It does not have any specific  principle of working, except the general rules that apply to our external sense organs. When put to use, with more vigor and effort, or a particular object of study is given continued special attention, our sense organs of eyes, ears or nose provides us with special results. Reason is also likewise - -when any subject of thought is given special, concentrated attention, its gets illuminated, and gives out unprecedented knowledge to the seeker.

Hence, world needs to shed many of its misconceptions about the faculty of Reason. It provides us knowledge the same way other sense organs provide, by virtue of the special QUALITY each organ handles.   

Reason often dwells deep into the given thought or idea, and comes out with all its constituent fundamentals in a related function. It often helps one to look through the smoke screen of confusion, at the sparkling  fundamental at the bottom.

Man becomes a non-ego entity when he uses Reason as a mode of gaining knowledge ! Hypotheses falls from no where when one is in the Reason mode, as once hinted by American Philosopher Charles Sanders PEIRCE.

The obsession of the classical philosophical schools to decide whether man's knowledge is 'a priori' or 'posteori' seems out of place when consider the centrality of knowing ENTITIES in the knowing process, in place of 'mind'and Reason as passive knowing organs. Such obsessions look like attempts to know how much of the TREE was carried by the seed, and how much the tree gathered by itself from outside. The seed carry the entire replica of the tree, but it  manifest itself into its shape and natural destiny after sprouting into the world.   

What was really 'a priori' ( before experience) was this MYSTERY SENSE OF ORDER in man as in-itself reality. This sense of order was that helped man to find the alleged certainty of mathematics, and other sciences. 

Mathematics can not be purely 'a priori' science as attributed by Kant.He says in 'PREFACE TO THE 2nd Edition of 'the critique of pure reason' that ' Mathematics and physics are the two theoretical sciences which have to determine their objects a priori. The former is purely priori, the latter is partially so, but is also 

dependent on other sources of cognition'. 

Countability, and measurability, ( of various parameters)   are qualities of the physical objects in the world, along with their other qualities and attributes like having mass and weight,  needing space to occupy itself etc. Mathematics is the field of study that handles this particular quality of the physical objects.

His argument that, axioms like 2 plus 2 will make 4,can not ever be thought wrong before or after experience is not different from our difficulty in imagining a river flowing upward, or a tree standing root side up ! These difficulties, or certainties are the work of our built-in sense of  ORDER, attached to the general faculty of Reason.

The above observed features of our in-built nature, the pre-set emotions we encounter in the course of life, and  the faculty of Reason that helps us to sense ORDER and CONSISTENCY of our inferences and conclusions, should pose serious questions on the originality of man's FREE WILL ! How free is our free will, as most of our actions and behaviour are automated, except the EGO's FREEDOM TO RESPOND to these features and experiences the way it feels fit. These subjective responses, it seems, make great differences at the way life treats him. In the phenomenal realm, energies created by way of such subjective responses and attitudes should be believed to be causing fitting effects. But such subjective ups and downs of the SYNTHETIC ENTITY of EGO do not alter any thing at the one and only IN-ITSELF center of existence, God, or the Mother Nature.

Above observations compel our Reason to infer that, the pure IN ITSELF reality about existence is at the RELATION front - -relation between the objects of the senses, and the relation of the observing entity with the observed objects, and finally, and the most central of all the relations, THE RELATION OF THE ENTITY OF MAN WITH THE SOURCE OF EXISTENCE .

We have seen that mere stand alone sensations about an object can not make KNOWLEDGE. Every school of philosophy agrees that sensations transform into experience and then knowledge when mind makes sense of it, by relating it to other pieces of knowledge already stored in the memory, proving again that it is through the process of RELATING, that KNOWLEDGE forms. The job of 'relating' is attributed to REASON. Act of relating is acts of finding, and fixing ORDER.

The ultimate and single IN ITSELF reality, is thus about the final answers for questions as to why man is here in the PHENOMENAL world, with a Reason like organ at his disposal, presumably to make him help an escape.

It is not POSSIBLE to think and infer that the door towards the ultimate reality is closed permanently for man.

Ego's bafflement at encountering involuntary internal experiences  

It should be reliably supposed that man even possess pre-set EXPERIENCE BUDS for spiritual experiences too. Man always succeed in making sense of such experiences, but at the cost of ego's objections in accepting  some thing not an 'object' before its sense organs - -ego often refuses to accept his emotional urges and products as real, as it can not be classified as 'objects of his external senses'.

Ego, the body of the mind,( or the SPIRIT ) derived from the world, ( like the flesh and blood body remains the physical body) is accustomed only to accept objects before the eyes, ears, touch etc., as real.  Man's real experience realm is the realm of his emotions and cravings, which usually works independently of the reign of the Ego. This arrangement has close similarity with food that the physical body takes in. Mind does not know how the internal digestive system handles the food that one eats. Digestive system works independently of the mind. Similarly, Ego does not know how the emotional intakes are handled by the mind.

 It is well known to psychologists that what we usually call the 'sub-conscious mind' receives its inputs independent of the mind organ, the weapon of the EGO, which handles only the sense world. Often, the interpretation of any given experience by ego and the subconscious mind differs. While realm of EGO makes sense of its objects and experiences by the classical 'ASSOCIATION' with an already existing, similar past object or experience, only the' a priori ' experience buds could make 'sense' to the emotional content of any given experience, on the above explained lines.

Part-2

The thing 'in it self' dilemma 

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

1) In the sense of what the 'object' thinks of itself, in contrast to what the subject's OBJECTIVE impression about it. For example, when I look at a CROW on the tree, I may feel that what the CROW think of itself would be the 'in-itself' reality about it, than what subjective impression I gather about this object.(  we should limit applying this 'sense'  for living beings only ,though we have no knowledge as to whether a stone, or a table has such a self-conscious dimension about themselves ! Life has not been understood fully yet by our scientific sense)

2) What the object is, in God's mind, or in the natures scheme of existence.

If we consider the first sense, we will be required to answer a basic question : Can all objects could claim a clear consciousness about itself, as to what they are physically, or metaphysically / 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 not ever claim that what I think of myself is the IN-ITSELF reality about me ! This is chiefly because, my conceptualization of me can not ever be other than an OBJECTIVE one, ie. me as an external object before me ! Because,  I have no other known organ other mind to know of myself too ! Hence, even when I maintain an independent subjective world, usually un-penetrable by any third party in its totality, it can not be considered as my 'in-itself' reality. For my mind, it is a phenomenal me.

The same law can confidently be applied to all other kinds of objects. The self-knowledge of no object in existence could be treated as its IN-ITSELF reality, because such knowledge too can not be outside the barrier of PHENOMENA.

In our new study, we would want to completely rule out the 2nd dimension also, of the sense in which 'in-itself' was meant - -ie.as God had meant it to be. The explanation given below show 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. Details of this argument follows down below. 

More over, by all the logic possible for man, by all the sense of reason he possess, he could safely presume that 'a thing in itself' could be the one and only original SOURCE of existence. It only could have self-consciousness about who he is, or what he is. The rest of the existence can have only 'synthetic' reality, as in the case of Ego. But how could such synthetic entities could break away from the catch of PHENOMENA and have glimpses of their original RELATION with the one and only 'in-it elf' reality is explained in the forth coming portions ? 

 It seems, in all possibility, 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, in bit more detail, and in a different perspective too, below:

Every object of the sense is devised for the on-looker ?

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 think of itself, whether it is a living object like an animal, or a plant, or an in-organic object like a stone, is irrelevant in the real world of mutual interaction.

Some body parts of man, as well as animals,( especially the reproduction related organs)  are designed and located at such places that, one can not 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 on looker subjects are also designed in such a way that,upon seeing, or touching such organs, it makes sense of it instantly, and nature arouse them for the designed action or interaction, say love making act, or if the object is a baby- sucking mothers milk, or if the subject is a predator, hunt down the prey. The beauty of a flower is obviously meant for the honey seeking bees,and butterflies !

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

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 subjects, as far as the 'other' in front of both the parties are object for each other. In simpler meaning, no object in the world can be termed an'OBJECT' for ever, as,when it initiate an interaction with another object, it suddenly alters its status as a  SUBJECT, who look at the other with its objective eyes. As said earlier, we can confidently apply this 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 reacts 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  the sea can not be treated as a subject, and the rock, an object, because energy exchange takes place in the act.

Or, let us  go for a more sophisticated example- the general object of the SOUND. ( an object of the sense of ear) Its very existence depends on the subject's mechanism of ear drum etc. When the phenomenon of sound was schemed by nature, if it had not devised sense devices like 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 phenomenon, not yet identified or known by man in this meaning !

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hence, this study could easily conclude that God, or nature might not have allocated any permanent IN IT SELF reality, 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.

The question of how ORIGINAL is man's FREE WILL !

Coming back to man, his mind organ, which is specifically designed to know and deal 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. It is the MIND of such synthetic OWNERS of life experiences that Kant had referred as CLOSED 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.

The concept of FREE WILL of living beings, seems limited to having a 'synthetic sense of ownership' for own actions, and its consequences. When the ownership itself is synthetic, how can his experiences could be original, and 'substance-filled ? 

He eats when hunger compels him, relieves himself of body wastes when specialized pressures tease him, seek love and sex partner when massive inborn urges disturb him, exercise his body when urge to 'exert' reminds him to be on his toes, and finally, seek truth, beauty and art compelled by the cravings of the internal sense of Reason- as just seen at above paragraphs ! It would be very interesting a subject to probe more, as to how much human act is the product of man's FREE WILL !

But it seems, with the said synthetic ownership, when he cut-itself off from his existential sources, he could be turning himself into a LAW UNTO HIM SELF, in the phenomenal realm, and God/Nature could have kept aside a separate system of law, based on CAUSES and EFFECT, to manage this kind of a show. Man's FREEWILL, seems applicable only in its limited meaning, in this domain !

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 EGOS , when they are trapped within the STAND-ALONE reality its four walls! When remain cut off  from the spiritual source existence, and within the dreaded walls of EGO, it has but to experience such calamities as really real, in all its meaning and severity ! This life and death question of  human life, the cause of its untold suffering and uncertainties has no other explanation other than what has depicted above! Phenomenal realm is a totally cut-off ( from the source of life and reality) synthetic realm, where the drama of life takes place for majority of men. 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 !

This study also probes into the possibility of man having other entities than the EGO during his life span, in the forthcoming pages. It also explores the possibility for man accessing other mind like, not yet discovered, or identified internal organs, for having glimpses at realities other than the usual PHENOMENA. When the entity changes, use of organs for accessing knowledge also could change ?

Our new study repeats - - the subject matter of existence was always the 'realm of emotional experience'. We shall study the existential relevance of keeping life under such 'emotional' realms in the forth coming portions.

The existential necessity of PHENOMENON in evolving ENTITIES, to act as observing subjects.

Every entity that exists depend upon some other entity around it, for providing it with an OBJECTIVE status in existence. The entity that I know as myself, is the product of my knowledge about how others around me perceive me ! This entity as I routinely know as MY SELF is my Ego. Others are the ones who provide my entity, ie. my Ego. A rose does not have any 'in itself' reality this way, except its OBJECTIVE reality that I provide to it. How can an inanimate object has any knowledge about what it is' in itself', when a much higher being of man himself does not have any idea who he is, 'in itself' ?

It seems,the very scheme of creation of various categories of entities is based on the fundamental idea of  having one's entity (reality) only as it appears to the onlooking others. I define myself, and make me a tangible reality by drawing my picture in the other persons' mind. The way others treat me is the way I realize  me. I can do this job forcefully too, like history's autocrats had done many times in the world, and submit others to accept me the way I desire ! However, my reality would be an illusion without my representing myself before others. This is very subtle a subject, that may require good intellectual effort for one to fully understand its working. 

A knower is born first, thanks to the special features the MIND organ provided to man, and then he is made to encounter other entities and objects around him, in the field set for the drama of life. For a dog, I appear as an OBJECTIVE reality in his life, whereas I do not have any 'in itself' knowledge about my self, except as one of the objects in the world, and an ENTITY, among other similar entities in the society.

part-3

What conclusions naturally evolve on the ultimate scheme of existence,based on the above discussion ? 

Kant's task ( in his work critique of pure reason)  was to find out how far Reason could be used in making inferences about metaphysical questions, such as who man is, what was the beginning of every thing that exists etc.  How 'pure' a knowledge that man's knowing mechanisms are capable of achieving ?

Here, the native features of the faculty of Reason should be looked at bit differently, as Kant has not differentiated Mind from Reason clearly. He used mind and reason at equal meaning, as if mind and reason are one, single entity, or reason is 'seated' within Mind.  In this study, we propose to treat Mind and reason as two different entities, or organs, or at least a distinctly different realm of mind with distinct functions. While mind is the very SPIRIT that provides the ENTITY for the unit of life ( ego's ownership feeling is provided by the mind) Reason seems to be a different and distinct entity.

 Reason is an organ, a blind seat of  ORDER ( or a sensor of ORDER ) than an organ that works on any pre-ordained set of laws. It is an internal sense organ to SENSE order inherent in any given input. It has some mystery concepts of cosmic ORDER inherent within. It works like our sense organ of TONGUE that senses TASTE inputs. Reason senses order, and discard disorder. It also craves for order, like tongue craves for sweet like tastes. In this meaning, Reason could throw light on the central question of existential direction too !

In this sense, Reason agrees to the speculative conclusion that if 2 and 2 makes 4, 2 billion and two billion should make 4 billion ! There is order in the above speculation, and this organ is devised to 'catch' such relation between premises and evidences  with possible inferences and conclusions.  

In order to achieve momentum of existence, perceiving entities (subjects) and plethora of objects were inevitable existential necessities. The original existential ONENESS could gets separated into independent synthetic ENTITIES, who form perceiving SUBJECTS  like man, only through the above seen scheme of every subject turning into natural objects before the similarly ordained other subjects. This drama of DUALITY was inevitable essential of the scheme of existence. Devising the scheme of  'Phenomenal' world was highly imaginative a choice of nature, for the purpose of the emergence of SYNTHETIC entities, like man, animals and plants.

The above seen SENSE OF REASON that could not refute that when two plus two makes four, 2 billion and 2 billion should not make anything other 4 billion, necessarily can not refute the inference drawn above - - -on the inevitability of DUALITY as the essential scheme of existence !

The original existential unity was a suffocating dead SILENCE. A unity of that sort is not capable of knowing of itself. To attain momentum and  life, the UNITY had to be transformed into DUALITY. The greatest existential urge, a hidden universal emotion, it seems, is of letting itself known !

How could a unity be divided for meeting such an existential purpose ? The scheme of PHENOMENA was the answer. Phenomena could produce synthetic entities, who could perceive each other as entities different from them, and give birth to INDEPENDENCE of the ENTITIES, though SYNTHETIC. ( means, without any core substance, but entities evolving on the principle of INTERSUBJECTIVITY)

The duality principle of existence more explained 

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 ENTITY when a subject perceives it. It is a mutually provided status, and a central aspect of the scheme of existence.

 Here, a  keen observer could see some truth in what Bishop Berkeley had claimed : matter can not exist without a perceiving entity. What he might have meant was the inevitability of  DUALITY for existence.


A perfect 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 ! Many a still unknown mysteries about our universe are equal to NON-EXISTENT for us, on the same principle.  

Nature has used this scheme,also for the working of the phenomenal world. Mind organ was schemed for emergence of ENTITIES, for perceiving  phenomenon. As we have seen above, in the example of new born baby, his EGO takes birth as and when he starts having his own experiences, as the OWNER of such experiences. It is not the other way; ego born first, and then he starts experiencing  objects and events. The objects and experiences gives birth to his entity. 

One could observe a close similarity here:  the way BODY (physical) was essential for the MIND (or spirit) as its vehicle and transport  of life, EGO was also essential as the primary BODY for the higher spirit of man to express itself !

Hence, emergence of KNOWING entities seems to be the essence of existential purpose, because, reality is a mutually provided state, between subjects and objects.


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 alter his thoughts, stand and behaviour.

For an example, it was such 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 individual, and that of the world, as larger communities. 

How do Ego knows of itself ?  The possibility of multiple ENTITIES within man, the knowing subject ! ( Is TRANSCENDING self beyond EGO possible? )

We, men, are conscious of our own unique entities among other similar entities. How nature has ensured this self awareness ? Who is the subject WITHIN, that perceives own ego as an objective entity? What entity within Emmanuel Kant that had made him capable of  observing the PHENOMENAL nature of mind, while remaining within the limitations of mind that he found ? How can an eye see itself ,and a mind observe itself ? 

His brilliant act of observation that mind can not 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 observation.

Reason as a faculty can not observe such hidden relations beyond the PHENOMENA, while its in the possession of EGO. Hence, this study would like to propose that man can transcend himself as altered 'entities', who uses REASON as a distinct organ, for acquiring knowledge, in ways different from the usual subject-object method of mind, and its owner, the EGO !

This process of man developing from the  body only  entity in the beginning, in line with the way animals live even today, to an EGO centered entity today ( a stepping up from the body centered stage) and the just observed ability of few select men transcending themselves into yet another newer ENTITIES, with wider realms of knowing, are indicative of the final destiny, and possibilities  that await humankind.  

Reason could find itself a potential organ in the possession of such transcended entities for gathering knowledge in a manner unfamiliar to mind. Like eyes observing some truth and describing it, Reason too, in its capacity as a SENSE ORGAN, 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 mind, and then sharing with others would naturally  take a beating.  

When mankind as a whole realize such possibility of transcending one self beyond the Ego level, acceptance of knowledge gained through the new medium would also gain larger mainstream acceptance ! 

As we have discussed, objective realities are shared subjective observations, or inferences. Sharing with others makes the real difference. Hence, when the possibility for man to transcend 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 spirituality for any man. 

In short, we could put it this way for more clarity that, Reason, when used by the ENTITY -EGO- gives out only PHENOMENAL reality. But when the unit man transcend himself by discarding the ownership of the EGO, he becomes a different entity altogether, who could use Reason as his NATIVE organ for gaining knowledge. At this mode, Reason acts like any other sense organ, illustrating the depths of the issue that one seeks. Great men comes out with astonishing findings pertaining to their fields of study in this way. The task of sharing such findings with the fellow men and the world at large is a greater task than the former. Here, he has to use LOGIC, the art and science of associating his base findings with an already existing truth (universal) and then explain 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 'collectively subjectivity', or an objective truth in the newly acquired status.

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. Great scientist Albert Einstein had said after the public acceptance of the Quantum mechanics : ' " Quantum mechanics is very impressive. 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".  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. 

As said above, rising one self above the EGO realm of knowledge is the primary step towards a universal spirituality. It happens 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, get at least partially removed when one cease to be an ego entity in the above sense. The very realization that ego see only phenomenon enables one to get free of its catch. One starts getting enabled to live life closer to the 'IN ITSELF' way, that nature has intended it to be.   

On the above seen subject-object principle for the emergence of entities, we have learned how Ego gains ENTITY on the principle of 'ownership' of experiences, besides on 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'.

But how man is able to perceive own ego as an external object, and learn about its features and characteristics as per the questions that we have raised

above ? For objective observation, there should be a subject, existing external to the object. Who is such subject here ? After the elevation of the science of Psychology to 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, scientific world is mum on this subject.

Every one of us is aware of this hidden self within, who often watch our social 'self,(ego) as a separate entity. Man often indulge into  internal conversation between these two internal entities or selves, known as self talk. Most of our thinking activity is such conversations between the two different selves within !

The keen observer must have noticed that such conversation is always initiated by this mystery self, not the EGO, because ego is  not even capable of perceiving any object beyond the realm of external senses. Hence, this one is definitely a self located a realm above Ego, who 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 adolescence stage. As a child is absolutely unable to grasp the intricacies of his own youth stage, or adolescence stage, Ego too is unable to know its next stage SELF. It seems a natural internal development in every man's internal life, like a youth turns into a middle aged man of wisdom,naturally in the due course of life.

Hence, the practice of philosophy and other pursuits of knowledge in treating man as a universal passive OBSERVER demands  a rethinking. The two different entities within man make two different observers, and subjects. The 2nd one is located at some realms outside the phenomena, hence it is able to observe EGO, and its realm of experience as mere phenomena.

Hence, at 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. 

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 be only a RELATION, the ultimate EMOTION that glue the existence together. The rest are all phenomenon, serving the purpose of catering to the main objective of existence.

As detailed in the blog link: http://thewhyquestionofexistenceanswered.blogspot.com/, an element of CREATIVE CHOICE is self evident in every aspect of existence. The design of the leaf of a papaya plat 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 element of CHOICE points towards an emotional content in the scheme of existence. It points towards a universal MIND, that is conscious of itself. 

Man might be possessing  special 'experience buds' within him to relish such future experiences of this existential EMOTION, at  evolutionary maturity of futures, one could safely presume !