will man discover a new organ other than mind?

Civic man and the metaphysical man - Civic man and the metaphysical man - Bloglog

2011-10-17T22:41:00.000-07:00

Civic man and the metaphysical man - Civic man and the metaphysical man - Bloglog

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

2011-10-01T20:56:00.000-07:00

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 theever eluding 'IN-ITSELF' reality

Preface

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

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

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

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

A final attempt has been made to understand the existentialPURPOSE. Why man has been locked behind the PHENOMENAL curtain ? Why doorstowards ultimate reality is shut for Ego ?

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

A conclusion is drawn that the objects in nature, or the knowingentities are not things in themselves. If there exists an 'in itself' realityin existence, it is that of the RELATION that unites these objects andentities. This relation is what defines the existence of entities and objects.Without realizing the 'all uniting' RELATION, the 'existential glue' ourknowledge 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 havebetter clarity. His broad definition of 'experience' was meant for theknowledge 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 assumptionsaltogether, as Reason has every 'reason' to be believed a SENSE ORGAN only,similar to our external sense organs. (A detailed study is there in oneof the following paragraphs.) The category it senses is ORDER and CONSISTENCYof the thought and premises, that mind originates, the way tongue senses thecategory 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 wouldmean by 'experiencing' love, anger or depression. When his eye encounter apiece of rock, or ear hear a thunder, tongue taste an apple, it all need not beclassified in the general category of EXPERIENCE. When one learns elementarymathematics of 2 plus 2 making 4, it is also not an experience, but could be inthe lay man's term- learning. No other input of the sense organs, or a notionalproduct of the mind like logical inference, need to be classified in the strictsense of EXPERIENCE.

Sense organs are like openings without doors. It remain opentowards the world always, involuntarily. Only sleep, again that visits maninvoluntarily, keeps the doors of senses shut. It is man's mind, an organ thatworks 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 andsystem digests food intakes. But, like the choice of choosing one's food intakeis often controllable by man, he has restricted freedom to choose what senseinput he prefers over others, by the act of concentration, meditation etc.

This study wishes to classify only one's emotional encounters asreal '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 ofexperiencing life's emotions. Life is more or less a journey for experiencingsuch emotions, and such objects of the senses have mere supporting role asaccessories for achieving the main purpose. Such emotions have its taste budspre-fixed in the mind, so that man could make sense out of such experiencesupon encountering those.

For example, when some one encounter his first love in life, hewould not have been able to make sense of this wonderful experience unless hehad a pre-set experience BUD to support relishing this very specialemotion. There is no chance that he had acquired the knowledge of thisexperience through his senses, during his life time.

Similarly, when some one experience a direct attack on his selfrespect, and self-hood, from a fellow being, or from the collectiveinstitutions such as a State, the rage that develop within him is definitelydue to a pre-set experience bud. This emotion of self-protection and angercomes naturally to every human being, and even for members in the animalkingdom.

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

More on EXPERIENCE BUDS : the craving of the EXPERIENCES forsatiation

It is not that each and every experience has the support ofindependent pre-set BUDS in the mind, but it seems that these buds are designedin such a way that various sub-experiences of a main category of experience, collectivelycater to one main category.

For an example, when a man experience the ecstasy of LOVE, he is not making sense ofeach and every sensory input, but indirectly relishing the main category of theexperience bud of LOVE. A set of different sense inputs, such asthat of touch, smell and taste constitute together to give man his experienceof 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 sensethe colour Green or Red.

Each experience bud constantly crave for its fulfillment too, itseems. Freud's notion of ID attains relevance here - -he mentioned Id as a seatof various inborn cravings. Cravings such as REVENGE, or DEPRESSION develop as the result of bruised, or chronically dissatisfied originalcravings. 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-designedEXPERIENCE BUDS.

Our new study on the pre-designed experience buds could throw newquestions on the great philosophic debate over how much of man'sknowledge is ' a priori' ( prior to experience) and how much is 'aposteriori'.(after experience) When a seeker finds sense in the aboveproposition of pre-set experience buds,he will naturally have to accept thatthere isn't much left out to be classified as a POSTERIORI in man's experiencerealm, except his realm for synthetic objects of the external senses, suchas a piece of rock, or a flower, or a dog. Such routine objects of the external senses enter the realm ofmind by the principle of 'association', and remain in memory in a subjectivepictorial 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, includingReason could succeed in doing the job.

Coming back to the EXPERIENCE buds, for a new born baby, the senseexperience of the nipple of his mother's breast in his mouth, and the sight ofthe breast may be OBJECTS that he encounter for the first time, but theemotions (sense of safety, and warmth of motherly love etc.) associated withbirth were in his system 'a priori'. For a lover, the sight of the well carvedbreast 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 newbornbaby, and the lover, but it arouses different emotions in the two subjects. Amother deer is two different objects in this meaning, one for her calf, and theother for the predator, Lion. The emotions attached to the same object isdifferent for the two different subjects.

We should safely assume that, in the mind of a human male, theimages of female breast and her other beautifully curved body parts had beenvaguely implanted by nature, hence the eternal appetite he has, to watch theseobjects, 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 mindsof 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 verylittle to do with man's 'emotional experiences, except its role probablyas mere instruments, or 'stimuli' in having emotional experiences. Theycollectively 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 hisEGO, takes place based on the principle; 'as the owner of the experiences heencounter' ,and as an 'object among the other routine objects around him'.

Life, after all is man's experiencing a series of EMOTIONS in thespan of life . It has very less to do with the innumerable physical objects hecome across in carrying out the life-process. It serves the purpose of only ageneral 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 theemergence of distinct ENTITIES, who could 'experience'. Fichte, Kant'sstudent-criticizer had touched this theme in a different meaning. He saidexperiences are part of the 'self consciousness' of the EGO, ego being aproduct of the 'inter-subjectivity' process. This emergence of the 'Ego', the firstsynthetic entity who could EXPERIENCE, was the distinct goal of nature.

The unique experience realm of each EGO makes every man a distinctAGGREGATE - -an entity with a different sum total of past experiences. Thestatus of such aggregate goes on changing every moment, as he is immersed inthe pool of the world, that provides him experience. Hence, the act ofexperience is a DYNAMIC PROCESS for each ego, each moment. The event ofexperience, 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 ofexperience, in a following portion of this study.

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

The entire classic notions about KNOWLEDGE, man as a universalsubject, experience as a stand alone event etc. should deserve the light of athorough revision and review. Mind can not be seen as a 'passive organ' that experiencesthe world. Who experience ( in the verbal form) world is a creative entity, theowner of the mind organ. Every act of experience is, thus, a creativeinteraction 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 hisobjects of the senses, and the events in life is detailed in bit moreelaborately in one of the forthcoming portions of this study.

Mind and Reason were usually seen as one and the same, withoutdistinctly differentiating their role and functions under such classic notions.In our new study, Reason is seen in the role of an internal SENSE ORGAN - -itsenses ORDER, as one of its primary function. It does not offer any instantmagic formula to arrive at truth, or ' a priori' knowledge, as the classicnotions have projected. Kant was very specific about the impure knowledge that'experience' provided by the Mind, and 'pure' knowledge that Reason gives 'apriori': he says, 'and it is my task to answer the question how far reasoncan go, without the material presented, and the aid furnished byexperience'(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 gatheredfor arriving at conclusions, or drawing temporary inferences, in the'deductive' process. Reason applies itself in the PRISMATIC function, whilehandling the inductive process. It splits the given ray of thought into all itsconstituent sub thoughts, ideas and possibilities, and finally tests the truthof the inferred proposition. Reason, thus, does the act of SENSING the logicalrelation between the inferences and the available evidences. This logicalrelation is nothing but the ORDER, or consistency between the two.

It is a specialized, inbuilt FACULTY, like the faculty of theTONGUE that differentiate tastes. It does not have any specific principleof 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 isgiven continued special attention, our sense organs of eyes, ears or noseprovides us with special results. Reason is also likewise - -when any subjectof thought is given special, concentrated attention, its gets illuminated, andgives out unprecedented knowledge to the seeker.

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

Reason often dwells deep into the given thought or idea, and comesout with all its constituent fundamentals in a related function. It often helpsone 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 ofgaining knowledge ! Hypotheses falls from no where when one is in the Reasonmode, as once hinted by American Philosopher Charles Sanders PEIRCE.

The obsession of the classical philosophicalschools to decide whether man's knowledge is 'a priori' or 'posteori' seems out of place when consider the centrality of knowingENTITIES in the knowing process, in place of 'mind'and Reason as passiveknowing organs. Such obsessions look like attempts toknow how much of the TREE was carried by the seed, and how much the treegathered 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 intothe world.

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

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

dependent on othersources of cognition'.

Countability, andmeasurability, ( of various parameters) are qualities of the physicalobjects in the world, along with their other qualities and attributes likehaving mass and weight, needing space to occupy itself etc. Mathematicsis the field of study that handles this particular quality of the physicalobjects.

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

The above observed features of our in-built nature, the pre-setemotions we encounter in the course of life, and the faculty of Reasonthat 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 freeis our free will, as most of our actions and behaviour are automated, exceptthe EGO's FREEDOM TO RESPOND to these features and experiences the way it feelsfit. These subjective responses, it seems, make great differences at the waylife treats him. In the phenomenal realm, energies created by way of suchsubjective responses and attitudes should be believed to be causing fittingeffects. But such subjective ups and downs of the SYNTHETIC ENTITY of EGO donot alter any thing at the one and only IN-ITSELF center of existence, God, orthe Mother Nature.

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

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

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

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

Ego's bafflement at encountering involuntary internal experiences

It should be reliably supposed that man even possess pre-setEXPERIENCE BUDS for spiritual experiences too. Man always succeed in makingsense of such experiences, but at the cost of ego's objections in accepting some thing not an 'object' before its sense organs - -ego often refusesto accept his emotional urges and products as real, as it can not be classifiedas '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 onlyto accept objects before the eyes, ears, touch etc., as real. Man's realexperience realm is the realm of his emotions and cravings, which usually worksindependently of the reign of the Ego. This arrangement has close similaritywith food that the physical body takes in. Mind does not know how the internaldigestive system handles the food that one eats. Digestive system worksindependently of the mind. Similarly, Ego does not know how the emotionalintakes are handled by the mind.

It is well known to psychologists that what we usually callthe 'sub-conscious mind' receives its inputs independent of the mind organ, theweapon of the EGO, which handles only the sense world. Often, theinterpretation of any given experience by ego and the subconscious minddiffers. While realm of EGO makes sense of its objects and experiences by theclassical 'ASSOCIATION' with an already existing, similar past object orexperience, only the' a priori ' experience buds could make 'sense' to theemotional 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 merephenomena, and as thing 'in itself', was a brilliant observation ! But thereare two possible meaning, or dimension to the IN-ITSELF status of anyobject. It would be interesting to probe, in what sense the great philosopherhad meant it :

1) In the sense of what the 'object' thinks of itself, in contrastto what the subject's OBJECTIVE impression about it. For example, when I lookat a CROW on the tree, I may feel that what the CROW think of itself would bethe 'in-itself' reality about it, than what subjective impression I gatherabout this object.( we should limit applying this 'sense' forliving beings only ,though we have no knowledge as to whether a stone, ora table has such a self-conscious dimension about themselves ! Life has notbeen understood fully yet by our scientific sense)

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

If we consider the first sense, we will be required to answer abasic question : Can all objects could claim a clear consciousness aboutitself, as to what they are physically, or metaphysically / spiritually ? Thoughwhat I think of myself would be unimaginably different from what my onlookersubject would think of me, as part of the phenomena around him, I can not everclaim that what I think of myself is the IN-ITSELF reality about me ! This ischiefly because, my conceptualization of me can not ever be other than anOBJECTIVE one, ie. me as an external object before me ! Because, I haveno other known organ other mind to know of myself too ! Hence, even when Imaintain an independent subjective world, usually un-penetrable by any thirdparty in its totality, it can not be considered as my 'in-itself' reality. Formy mind, it is a phenomenal me.

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

In our new study, we would want to completely rule out the 2nddimension also, of the sense in which 'in-itself' was meant - -ie.as God had meantit 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 toEVOLVE in the process of life, in the subject-object interactions, instead ofallocating a permanent, unchangeable identity. Details of this argument followsdown below.

More over, by all the logic possible for man, by all the sense ofreason he possess, he could safely presume that 'a thing in itself' could bethe one and only original SOURCE of existence. It only could haveself-consciousness about who he is, or what he is. The rest of the existencecan have only 'synthetic' reality, as in the case of Ego. But how could suchsynthetic entities could break away from the catch of PHENOMENA and have glimpsesof their original RELATION with the one and only 'in-it elf' reality is explainedin 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 seethis 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 criticizingKant's original term) What the object think of itself, whether it is a livingobject like an animal, or a plant, or an in-organic object like a stone, isirrelevant in the real world of mutual interaction.

Some body parts of man, as well as animals,( especially thereproduction related organs) are designed and located at such placesthat, one can not even see them properly and fully in one's own body ! Suchorgans are, it seems, expected to be seen only by the on looking others ! Itseems 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 waythat,upon seeing, or touching such organs, it makes sense of it instantly, andnature 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 apredator, hunt down the prey. The beauty of a flower is obviously meant for thehoney seeking bees,and butterflies !

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

It is logically difficult to presume that God might have kept asecret 'in-itself' reality for both the objects- here in the world ofphenomena, 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 suddenlyalters its status as a SUBJECT, who look at the other with its objectiveeyes. Assaid earlier, we can confidently apply this norms to living subjects andobjects ( man, animals and plants) though we do not know for sure how 'life' canbe defined in exact terms ! Inorganic objects also reacts to each other,interchanging their roles as subjects and objects : for example, when the seawater forces itself against a rock on the coast line, why the sea can notbe treated as a subject, and the rock, an object, because energy exchange takesplace in the act.

Or, let us go for a more sophisticated example- the generalobject of the SOUND. ( an object of the sense of ear) Its very existencedepends on the subject's mechanism of ear drum etc. When the phenomenon ofsound was schemed by nature, if it had not devised sense devices like ears, itwould not have existed for living beings for all practical logic. For a deafperson, sound does not exist as a sense object. There could be many suchnatural phenomenon, not yet identified or known by man in this meaning !

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

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

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

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

Above claim in our study can be found very true, once againin the example of man-woman love relation - -it is in the course of intenseinteraction that each partner starts experiencing newer and newer colours andfeatures in themselves, that they had never observed within themselves before ! When there exists some one in life to receive and joyfullyaccept what ever behaviour that comes out of each other, partners experience adivine freedom, the FREEDOM OF LOVE', and they blossom like plants and trees inspring ! These features of the subject, as well as the object could neverhave been in the original 'in-itself' reality planned by God, but He might havekept 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 rocktoo. The rock does notknow of itself beyond what its subject- here, man, makes itself with !Yesterday's rock and sand is what stands as today's cemented towers andtownships in the world ! If that piece of rock has happened to be a piece ofthe nuclear fuel 'URANIUM', as already seen above, it could have never known ofits own destructive powers until its subject- man- attempted to split one ofits atom, and released the nuclear energy !

Hence, this study could easily conclude that God, or nature mightnot have allocated any permanent IN IT SELF reality, or identity to any singleobject in existence. It was rather a creative manifestation of some mind likeenergy into a plethora of objects and subjects, left at the PHENOMENALdomain, 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 designedto know and deal PHENOMENA, is instrumental in creating the ENTITY, or theOWNER figure, the EGO, as already seen earlier. When this synthetic OWNER ofphenomenal experiences remains totally cut-off from all deeper sources ofexistence, life becomes a stand alone affair for such subjects. It is the MINDof such synthetic OWNERS of life experiences that Kant had referred as CLOSEDto the in-itself reality of the objects of the senses. Science too accepts onlysuch 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 theownership itself is synthetic, how can his experiences could be original, and'substance-filled ?

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

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

Life's sorrowful experiences, its emotional and physicalcalamities and ups and downs appear CAUSE and EFFECT driven, or even purelyaccidental, when looked at through the eyes of such synthetic self-holders. Hence,the uncertainties, and the personal and natural calamities in life are peculiarexperiences of the EGOS , when they are trapped within the STAND-ALONE realityits four walls! When remain cut off from the spiritual source existence,and within the dreaded walls of EGO, it has but to experience such calamitiesas really real, in all its meaning and severity ! This life and death questionof human life, the cause of its untold suffering and uncertainties has noother explanation other than what has depicted above! Phenomenal realm is atotally cut-off ( from the source of life and reality) synthetic realm, wherethe drama of life takes place for majority of men. When man thinks that he, ashis EGO, is the one and only entity and OWNER that EXPERIENCES life, the othercontrolling energies of existence back-off, thus making the realm under themastery of the EGO !

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

Our new study repeats - - the subject matter of existence wasalways the 'realm of emotional experience'. We shall study the existentialrelevance of keeping life under such 'emotional' realms in the forth comingportions.

The existential necessity of PHENOMENON in evolving ENTITIES, toact 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 knowas myself, is the product of my knowledge about how others around me perceiveme ! This entity as I routinely know as MY SELF is my Ego. Others are the oneswho provide my entity, ie. my Ego. A rose does not have any 'in itself' realitythis way, except its OBJECTIVE reality that I provide to it. How can aninanimate object has any knowledge about what it is' in itself', when a muchhigher 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 entitiesis based on the fundamental idea of having one's entity (reality) only asit appears to the onlooking others. I define myself, and make me a tangiblereality by drawing my picture in the other persons' mind. The way others treatme is the way I realize me. I can do this job forcefully too, likehistory's autocrats had done many times in the world, and submit others toaccept me the way I desire ! However, my reality would be an illusion withoutmy representing myself before others. This is very subtle a subject, that mayrequire good intellectual effort for one to fully understand its working.

A knower is born first, thanks to the special features the MINDorgan provided to man, and then he is made to encounter other entities andobjects around him, in the field set for the drama of life. For a dog, I appearas 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 anENTITY, among other similar entities in the society.

part-3

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

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

Here, the native features of the faculty of Reason should belooked at bit differently, as Kant has not differentiated Mind from Reasonclearly. He used mind and reason at equal meaning, as if mind and reason areone, single entity, or reason is 'seated' within Mind. In this study, wepropose to treat Mind and reason as two different entities, or organs, or atleast a distinctly different realm of mind with distinct functions. While mindis the very SPIRIT that provides the ENTITY for the unit of life ( ego'sownership feeling is provided by the mind) Reason seems to be a different and distinctentity.

Reason is an organ, a blind seat of ORDER ( or asensor of ORDER ) than an organ that works on any pre-ordained set of laws. Itis an internal sense organ to SENSE order inherent in any given input. It has some mystery concepts ofcosmic 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 tonguecraves for sweet like tastes. In this meaning, Reason could throw light on thecentral question of existential direction too !

In this sense, Reason agrees to the speculative conclusion that if2 and 2 makes 4, 2 billion and two billion should make 4 billion ! There isorder in the above speculation, and this organ is devised to 'catch' such relationbetween 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. Theoriginal existential ONENESS could gets separated into independent syntheticENTITIES, who form perceiving SUBJECTS like man, only through the aboveseen scheme of every subject turning into natural objects before the similarlyordained other subjects. This drama of DUALITY was inevitable essential of thescheme of existence. Devisingthe scheme of 'Phenomenal' world was highly imaginative a choice of nature, for the purpose of the emergence ofSYNTHETIC entities, like man, animals and plants.

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

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

How could a unity be divided for meeting such an existentialpurpose ? The scheme of PHENOMENA was the answer. Phenomena could producesynthetic entities, who could perceive each other as entities different fromthem, and give birth to INDEPENDENCEof the ENTITIES, though SYNTHETIC. ( means, without any core substance, butentities evolving on the principle of INTERSUBJECTIVITY)

The duality principle of existence more explained

We have seen above that DUALITY was nature's scheme for theemergence 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 thescheme 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 wasthe 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 phenomenalworld. Mind organ was schemed for emergence of ENTITIES, for perceiving phenomenon. As we have seen above, in the example of new born baby, hisEGO takes birth as and when he starts having his own experiences, as the OWNERof such experiences. It is notthe other way; ego born first, and then he starts experiencing objectsand 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 spiritof man to express itself !

Hence, emergence of KNOWING entities seems to be the essence ofexistential purpose, because, reality is a mutually provided state, betweensubjects 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 multipleENTITIES within man, the knowing subject ! ( Is TRANSCENDING self beyond EGOpossible? )

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

His brilliant act of observation that mind can not cross thebarrier of PHENOMENA was definitely NOT within the limit of man's thinkingfaculty, that he himself had observed and admitted ! Obviously, Kant hadtranscended himself into a different entity other than his EGO, to make suchobservation.

Reason as a faculty can not observe such hidden relations beyondthe PHENOMENA, while its in the possession of EGO. Hence, this study would liketo propose that man can transcend himself as altered 'entities', who usesREASON as a distinct organ, for acquiring knowledge, in ways different from theusual 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, toan EGO centered entity today ( a stepping up from the body centered stage) and thejust observed ability of few select men transcending themselves into yetanother newer ENTITIES, with wider realms of knowing, are indicative of thefinal destiny, and possibilities that await humankind.

Reason could find itself a potential organ in the possession ofsuch transcended entities for gathering knowledge in a manner unfamiliar tomind. Like eyes observing some truth and describing it, Reason too, in itscapacity as a SENSE ORGAN, could simply watch and describe what it observes,forming new dimensions to the act of gaining knowledge. Here,the classicalmethod of acquiring knowledge by mind, and then sharing with others wouldnaturally take a beating.

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

As we have discussed, objective realities are shared subjectiveobservations, or inferences. Sharing with others makes the real difference.Hence, when the possibility for man to transcend himself to higher stages ofknowledge is shared in the mainstream world, what awaits man is a new world,with newer relations with each other, sans the (selfish) obsessions of theEGO.

Such transcending could be understood as the first sign ofspirituality 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 theunit man transcend himself by discarding the ownership of the EGO, he becomes adifferent entity altogether, who could use Reason as his NATIVE organ forgaining knowledge. At this mode, Reason acts like any other sense organ,illustrating the depths of the issue that one seeks. Great men comes out withastonishing findings pertaining to their fields of study in this way. The taskof sharing such findings with the fellow men and the world at large is agreater task than the former. Here, he has to use LOGIC, the art and science ofassociating his base findings with an already existing truth (universal) and thenexplain the relation of his findings with such universal truths, to convert thefinding into an acceptable law. Here, he uses logic to convert his subjectivevision into a 'collectively subjectivity', or an objective truth in the newlyacquired status.

Not only Emmanuel Kant, but many other great souls like him hadsucceeded in transcending their selves to higher realms for coming out withfantastic observations and conclusions. Great scientist Albert Einstein hadsaid after the public acceptance of the Quantum mechanics : ' " Quantum mechanics is veryimpressive. But an ‘inner voice’tells me that it is not the real thing. The theory produces a good deal but hardly bringsone closer to the secrets of the Old One. I am at all events convinced that He(God) does not play dice". This inner voice wasdefinitely not from his usual mind, a prisoner behind the walls of 'PHENOMENA',but his transcended SELF could use Reason as his native knowledge gainingorgan.

As said above, rising oneself above the EGO realm of knowledge is the primary step towards a universalspirituality. 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 asingle object, get at least partially removed when one cease to be an egoentity in the above sense. The very realization that ego see only phenomenonenables one to get free of its catch. Onestarts getting enabled to live life closer to the 'IN ITSELF' way, that naturehas intended it to be.

On the above seen subject-object principle for the emergence ofentities, we have learned how Ego gains ENTITY on the principle of 'ownership'of experiences, besides on the strength of the existence of similar entitiesaround, which is based on the simple logic of - -YOU ARE, HENCE I AM' . Fichtecalled this process of the emergence of EGOs by the name"INTERSUBJECTIVITY'.

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

above ? For objective observation, there should be a subject,existing external to the object. Who is such subject here ? After the elevationof the science of Psychology to certain level of acceptability among othersciences, Freud's Ego concept has,however, gained some kind of a scientificsanctity. But, this existential question of what 'self' of man perceives EGO asan object has not yet gained any popularity among philosophers andpsychologists. Though religions and spiritualists attribute this role to thehuman SOUL, more a non worldly concept, scientific world is mum on thissubject.

Every one of us is aware of this hidden self within, who oftenwatch 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 betweenthe two different selves within !

The keen observer must have noticed that such conversation isalways initiated by this mystery self, not the EGO, because ego is noteven capable of perceiving any object beyond the realm of external senses.Hence, this one is definitely a self located a realm above Ego, who relatesitself to realities beyond the sense world. This hidden self is an entity thatGROWS OUT from the ego, like the YOUTH stage grows out of man's adolescencestage. As a child is absolutely unable to grasp the intricacies of his ownyouth stage, or adolescence stage, Ego too is unable to know its next stageSELF. 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 courseof life.

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

Hence, at the ultimate analysis, it becomes evident that any formof knowledge is possible only as SUBJECTIVE impressions of some kind ofENTITIES. These impressions serve the purpose of mere MATERIAL forconstituting these ENTITIES.

The 'in-itself' reality is, ultimately that of theRELATION among the entities.Ultimate reality is not a THING, or an OBJECT, or aSCIENTIFIC FORMULA. It can be only a RELATION, the ultimate EMOTION that gluethe existence together. The rest are all phenomenon, serving the purpose ofcatering 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. Thedesign of the leaf of a papaya plat could have been a thousand and one otherdesigns and shapes. The hexagonal shape of the bee-hive could have beenspherical, or square ! These design choices explain no logical relation withany evolutionary necessity, hence, these self evident element of CHOICE pointstowards an emotional content in the scheme of existence. It points towards auniversal MIND, that is conscious of itself.

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

2011-06-03T13:59:00.000-07:00

FRIDAY, JUNE 3, 2011

Which MIND helped Kant to observe that it can not grasp what an object 'IN ITSELF' is?

Philosopher Locke had argued that, as only material things can affect our senses, we know nothing but matter, so we must accept materialistic philosophy. If sensations are the stuff of thought, matter must be the material of mind !

Bishop Berkeley counter argued: if all our knowledge are mere 'sensations', and ideas derived from these sensations, 'a thing' is merely a bundle of perceptions- perceptions of the mind. Hence the only reality that we directly know is the MIND, that give these perceptions. Hence, matter does't exist, but only mind and its perceptions !

Philosopher Hume, who came after Berkeley, counter argued both Locke and Berkeley - - -' we know mind only as we know matter, by perception,though the former is internal. There is no 'observable' SOUL behind the process of thought'.

According to historian Will Durant, as Hume had effectively destroyed mind, Berkeley had destroyed matter !

Immanuel Kant's mission was to save mind as well as matter. He consoled the world that what mind grasp is good enough for man to lead his life on earth, and to progress with his science,though what the mind grasps is not the reality of the objects ' IN ITSELF '. Its reality is only the subjective reflection of mind. Mind can not ever know what realty 'in itself' is,except by intuitive powers of the mind ! He never elaborated what these intuitive power is , and whether man could ever possess it.

But he was rather sure about the limitations of the mind, that it can never lay hand on reality "IN ITSELF'.

Kant's above brilliant observation begs for an answer for the next natural question - -which MIND had helped him to DOUBT the inability of it, to grasp the IN ITSELF reality of objects ? Was there a hidden SUPER MIND above his usual mind, unknown to him, that tipped him about the limitations of man's usual mind ? As an EYE can not see itself, the MIND can not observe it self too.

Another brilliant mind of our age, a truly scientific mind, that of Albert Einstein, stated about the quantum theory that " 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".

Which mind he had hinted as his "INNER VOICE' ?

The usual mind of man, at many junctures of life, hints and even warm him that his conclusions based on the available evidences are WRONG. Or, like in the case of Kant, man is often unaware of the existence of a higher organ above mind that enable him to 'observe' the former as an 'external object' of study, and even form serious conclusions on its working !

Our Science is certain that there is a 'missing link' to unite all his energy sources, and its theories, to explain the phenomenon of life and existence. What aspect of Reason hints the science about this inadequacy of its knowledge ?

Man's sense of Reason not only detect 'order' and consistency of the conclusions he has arrived at on the basis of available premises in front of him, it also warm him of the inadequacy and incompleteness of his inferences! He is often compelled to accept the existence of a hidden SUPER MIND above his usual mind.

The question is merely whether this SUPER MIND is something in the offing for future, in the process of evolution, or was it a case of an organ going REDUNDANT and extinct, like the case the lost TAIL for man,during his bidding good bye to his monkey days?

This writer stands for the former version - - - man was blessed with this now extinct mind in the beginning - -knowing everything about his origin. During civilizational transition from one generation to other, the links got cut-off at some point in time, and the next generations had to develop the present day mind exclusively with materials and logics that his sense organs had provided him! A mind that got cut of from ORIGINS and MEANINGS. A new SYNTHETIC personality for man, (his EGO ) for living with his SYNTHETIC realities!

Man may have to attempt a re-look at the present theory (dogma ?) of EVOLUTION for probing into such possibilities of his SUPER MIND, now extinct by non-use !

Abraham Joseph
www.conscienceofthesociety.com
(A philosophic non-profit that stand for research and study into human Reason, and the cause of reinvented democracy)
June,2011

2010-12-31T00:24:00.000-08:00

Will a ‘higher’ mind take over the life of man in future ?

Scientists and philosophers of mind mostly believe that mind is the sole organ of knowing, and it knows by observation, followed by the process of deductive or inductive logic. But this writer had long lingering vibes that man knows first, and then covert it into a UNIT OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE MIND by finding appropriate premises from the 'experience' world. Only this exercise will gain such piece of knowledge acceptability of the mind - it being the sole authority over the sense world- wherein the subject-object mechanism rule the scene.

Knowledge always drop from some other source, most probably by the work of a hidden, not yet identified inner 'seat of 'order', parallel to mind. It works on different principles sans the deductive or inductive logic. This organ supply the knowledge first, and then the mind tries to internalize it for the 'ego', by searching for premises in order to link and associate with the already amassed set of previous information.

By this process of 'associating', we make the piece of knowledge 'sensible'.

Logic evokes association of a current event or relation with either a well established previous relation between two events or objects,(cause-effect relation) or an event or a relation coming in a known sequence.(not one caused from a given effect, but one event always follows the other in the observed nature) Truth for logic at this level is that of familiarity. As men always interact at their ego level, they can agree only on truths observable by both the parties.

For agreement on truths of the other genre referred above, which is beyond the subject-object interplay, both parties required to be at the level of the above hinted non-ego mind. In other words, for agreement, both must be using one and the same cognition organ. An easy exercise to understand this difficulty would be to imagine the interaction between a born blind and a born deaf men. Their realities can never be the same.

In our knowledge, the American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce was the only one who had once hinted about this hidden source of the origin of hypothesis. He wrote, 'man's hypothesis always drops from up'.

This mystery seat of order always remain immersed in the knowledge pool. Here one simply knows. It is a non-ego self identity zone for every man, perhaps searched by meditating men and spiritualists. His separation from the original source of existence ceases there, hence he is not his social ego there. The more one remain and act from the ego identity, the more he becomes a world entity, and the more he is able to remain, and act as this hidden identity, the more the sense world distant itself from him.

We dare to propose that this hidden identity might be in fact the work of a developing inner organ for man in the evolutionary process, like ‘hand’ was developed into an effective, distinct organ for man as his ape state came to an end !

It is also quite possible that like the milk teeth of a child drop and a new set replaces it in the life span of man, our mind organ, fit only for chewing mild truths, will drop gradually, and a new mind fit for higher kind of truth will take over the life of man one day !

There is an article viz. 'the mystery sparkle called Reason' at our NGO blog site:

http://www.blogger.com/profile/14249415589712707293

- - wherein this concept of Reason has been elaborated a bit more in detail. It has shown that the 'mind organ' too has been a recent development from his state of 'one single collective mind' of the old herd man.

We invite meaningful responses from all seekers of truth.