There is something, within us that is not of this Earth; in fact, not of this entire Universe, as we understand it.

This blog is a forward-flowing narrative.
Please read from the OLDEST post first.
Thank you for dropping in...

In conclusion, for the preceding, the subtle distinction between “MIND” and “SOUL” is detectable through the lens of Growth. In turn, the concept of Growth is the discriminant between what is “Earthly-Real” and “Other-worldly," Real: we know that what is “Real,” in Earthly terms, has two distinctive characteristics:

1) It is substantial. That is, it is made or constituted of the elements found on this planet.

2) It is subject to “growth”; it starts small and grows larger. It ripens, matures or ages. It decays, rusts, ages and dies. It “peaks,” that is, reaches a stage of growth at which it is most recognizable as itself; as a specific phenomenon; as a class of events. All phenomena and events, on Earth, are substantial and gradual. We say, “Subject to Evolution,” that is, a specific direction of growth.

Applying this criterion to MIND, we find the criterion to fit very well:

1) MIND is materialized in an animal body.

2) It is subject to Growth and Evolution.

3) It continuously interacts with Earthly phenomena and events, which it attempts to control.

On the other hand, the same criteria do not apply to “SOUL.” By definition, the Soul is “Not of this Earth.” This is a constant in the description of what a Soul is or might be. It is said to be “immortal,” that it is not subject to decay and death; which, by consequence, also should imply that it is uncreated – but no such luck – they insist that it is “created.”

By the same token, it should not be subject to Growth and Evolution – again, no such luck – for they grant it one narrow field of play: from Evil to Good. How about from Good to Evil? No, they say, nothing goes from Good to Evil, only from Evil to Good. Now, that is a very narrow scope of Evolution and a very unidirectional one at that. Only two modes are admitted: Good or Evil. There is also only one way to win: you can only bet on Good. Which makes you ask, “WHO,” in his right mind, would only ever bet Evil?! Isn’t this what you would call a “zero sum game,” winner takes all? At least, if the evil souls were to be destroyed, we would have some movement, in this scene. “No,” we are told, “they are prescribed in Hell.” So, Growth is restricted to a one-way traffic: either Earth to Heaven or Earth to Hell. This train has only two lines. This game has only two issues.

This is not the mental image we have of evolution, on Earth. Here, a number of surprising things can happen. The most surprising things happen all the time. Well, only yesterday, this amoeba has become a human being. The dinosaurs have disappeared, even though they were doing so well. Even the Earth itself mutates, continuously.

There are many options, on this Earth. Most of them unpredictable.

Well, see for yourself how this creature that lived in caves has now built an orbiting station in Space. Would you have guessed it, a million years ago? This “Soul” is suspiciously not of this Earth. Fine. So, there is something, within us that is not of this Earth; in fact, not of this entire Universe, as we understand it.

What then, could it be?

It seems completely useless for survival. In fact, it is maladapted to Earthly conditions. It does not even recognize right from wrong, except very reluctantly. After all, the Angels are souls. Yet, they too did not recognize Good and Truth. At least, many of them did not, we are told. So, even “pure” souls are rather dumb. They do not seem to recognize their own self-interest. To say the least!

In short, even if God, the ultimate parallel reality, did exist, there is no guarantee that our “soul” will lead us to Him. Now, who needs such a dumb thing? Why burden ourselves with a Soul? Why not stay with this MIND; a child of our own world?

At this point, let us step back and practice some constructive doubt, asking ourselves:

Could MIND and SOUL be reconciled? Could they be one and the same? In the sense that in its mechanical and earthly functions, we call “it” MIND, while in its aspects that relate to the Totality of Reality, all that is, we call it SOUL?

What of we stripped this soul of its mythological contents, of Good and Evil, the Cosmic Struggle and the theme of the Return to the Creator? Could there still be left, enough, for this SOUL to remain something real? Does it have to be immortal?

It seems to me that such a SOUL would still be “natural.” Not as natural as the MIND but, still, natural. It all would depend on what we meant by “Nature.” If you restrict the extension of the word to the phenomena on Earth, you have one restrictive definition. If you broaden the scope to include the entire Universe, “visible and invisible,” in the language of the past, you still face a major problem:

Most people in most times would deny the existence of any invisible Universe. After all, they would argue, WHAT IS OUT THERE, other than more stars or more clouds of plasma? We are cataloguing Everything that is OUT THERE. We have names for everything: SPACE, VOID, STARS, etc., and since we have names, we must know everything. If you were to ask, “How about this Dark Matter, of which we know nothing and which is said to constitute 90 or even 99% of all Matter?

“Don’t you worry about that, either. We have a name for it too. It is all a matter of time before we find its own quirks and quarks.” In other words, I am being asked to have blind faith and presume that I know what I do not know. I am supposed to believe that I know the Entire Universe, all of Reality, on the strength of 1%, or 10%, of all That is.

I would have to assume that that 10% is representative of the 100%.. For that, I must assume that the Universe is homogeneous. If this Universe is that homogeneous, then why is it composed, at 90% or 99%, of some kind of material which we cannot even begin to comprehend? It would seem to me, with my feeble intellect, that a 1% or a 10% of anything, so different from the remaining 90 or 99%, must be an exception. It seems to me that the 90% should be considered “the norm.”

Why, then, is our logic reversed?

Why do we persist in this blind faith that, somehow, our 10% corner of Reality must be all of Reality? Very strange, indeed. What if, in an immortal Universe, there were immortal entities? Why would that be so “strange?”

Back to our problem: do we include, in our definition of “Nature,” that 99% of Dark Matter? Or do only consider what our telescopes see?

Is “Nature,” only and nothing else, what our telescopes see?

Is “Nature,” only and nothing else, but what we could see?

Is it, only and nothing else, but what we describe in our Physics and Chemistry texts?

Is there no other Reality, outside of Science?

Now, please keep in mind the fact that I am an atheist and that, by temperament, I am not fond of Gods, Angels, Miracles or anything of that sort. Furthermore, I am not “selling you” any ideology or faith.

I am just asking you to think with me.

So, tell me – how far does Nature extend? If you conceive it, as I do, as far more than chemical reactions, electromagnetism, the four seasons, rain and thunder, even well beyond (E=MC2), then, it must be vastly unknown and, perhaps, unknowable.

It is a truism that all teachers only teach what they know. What they do not know, they never mention or even deny it exists. The same is true of our scientists. Their discourse is about what they know, think they know. Of course, they also talk a lot about what they do not know. We all know it!

There is also the dogmatism of the “schools of thought.” The bane of civilized minds! Every historical period is dominated by some institutionalized form of thought; in fact, an ideology.

The problem with any ideology is that it sins against true reason, in two major aspects that I know:

1) Its intellectual productions are powered by a single paradigm. In the case of science, Mechanism.

2) Its intellectual productions are the product of institutional consensus, which entails compromise, hair splitting, petty quarrels, vain-glory and, finally, status quo.

There is always some “Method” involved. Mountains of information, that no one knows how to put together, but piecemeal, in scientific “theories,” about this and that and the other thing. A lot of analyses but very little synthesis. Those who attempt a synthesis indulge in histrionics, sensationalism and sleight of hand – that are outright intellectual dishonesty.

How much “Reality” are “we” “really” in touch with and what, exactly, are “I” and “we?”

This blog is a forward-flowing narrative.
Please read from the OLDEST post first.
Thank you for dropping in...

There lie the dangers of any social ideology, even Democracy. The purpose of any ideology being the maintenance of a status quo. Now, you may ask, “To whom does the crime profit?” – and I will leave you to figure out the answer for yourself!

For centuries, the old standbys of “instinct” and “reflex” have served as explicative principles for a myriad of behaviors. No one ever knew what they were really talking about until, in the 20th century, the phenomenon of “photosensitivity”, in unicellular organisms, gave us a bio-chemical foundation. However, to this day, I still do not know how photons could trigger motion. Too lazy to investigate further, I am satisfied with the thought that the idea is not so unlikely.

The big question I would like answered before I die is the possibility of experience being transmitted genetically. For this would explain many puzzles: the child genius; the idiot savant; extraordinary speed in learning and adaptation, and that so many people seem to know, subconsciously, a hell of a lot of things they never learnt or experienced.

It would, in many ways, reconcile Mind and Matter and end the dichotomy between them. I would not be surprised that such a mechanism does exist, for we have proof that some materials have “memory” of the initial molding in which they were cast; notably, alloys. Crystals too are very promising because they always rearrange themselves in specific patterns. Hence, the notion that Matter is endowed with the characteristics of Memory is not so far-fetched.

As all individual experiences are, really, collective experiences, it would explain that wave after wave of newborns seem to be more “advanced” then their predecessors.

Only the individual carries this ability to transmit his memories through his genes. However, his experiences carry the sum total of the experiences of the collective, within which he lived and was fashioned. Whatever our truly personal inner stirrings might be, they are “formatted” by our culture – culture being a system of inhibitions, generally speaking, only very few individuals go beyond the limitations set by the cultural norms. Otherwise, collectives would be ungovernable. If human nature was such (that individuality was unrestrained) there would have been no civilization.

Our individuality is largely a myth.

A White Lie.

A Mind Game.

A very short leash.

A very personal sense of reality would lead you to an insane asylum or a maximum security jail.

So, whatever experiences are genetically transmitted, they would be those consolidated by uniformity and repetition, as all cultures are, fundamentally, the same – or, to re-phrase, similar in fundamental structures. The result, over millennia, is the creation of a “Human Nature.” That has nothing much to do with Nature. As demonstrated by the cases of individuals who have never escaped enculturation, one way or another.

Since the very first man, who puzzled over the appearance of a straight branch being “bent” by the water, the debate has been raging over how much Reality we are “really” in touch with.

He must have experimented for hours, dipping the branch in a pond: now it appears bent; now it is straight! He must have wondered which of the appearances was ‘real.”

Eventually, by running his hands over the half-submerged branch – or by fixing the branch in the mud to have it cast a shadow – he convinced himself that, probably, the water was creating a “delusion.” The first instance of the mind correcting the senses.

However, our primitive friend had also a lot of trouble with his dreams – “If sleep is for resting, why do we dream? And how is it that these dreams are so detailed and so life-like?” For there was nothing in these dreams that he did not experience in his wake state. Often, he would be sexually aroused, solve a problem or have a change of heart, in those dreams. The dream solution would then prove to be workable in the real world. The sexual arousal would have produced very real gratification. The change of heart would persist in his wake state. What else was he to think but that dreams are also “real?”

He knew nothing of Psychology, or even that his brain was a lot more than something good to eat – when it was someone else’s brain! Now, these dream experiences were far more difficult to “correct.” For the Mind, involved with itself, could hardly “correct” itself. Furthermore, the Mind did not know of its own existence. Literally. Yes, it is obvious to me. The Mind, saying to itself: “I am a Mind,” is a relatively recent invention. For when he said “I,” he did not mean “my mind” – he meant his body, his name, his affiliation to clan, the record of his achievements…but not his mind.

“Those were innocent days,” you might say.

“Not so fast,” would I interrupt rudely.

Who is to say that we are not the ones who are naïve? Who says you could not exist without a Mind? What is “a mind,” come to think of it? And how is it that trillions of Earth creatures have existed and thrived, over billions of years, without even saying to themselves, “I have a mind, you know. A dinosaur mind, you know. A bacterial mind, you know.” Obviously, this “Mind” is not at all necessary for survival.

How is it that mention of Mind, within the written record, appears not earlier than 3,000 years ago? Even Aristotle only speaks of a “Universal Mind.” He never once speaks of his own mind. Didn’t he know he had a mind? Why should such a universal man, a great scholar, not have authored a book entitled, “The Mind”?

The ancient Greeks spoke of “Nous.” By that, they meant Awareness, Thought, Emotion, Will, and such. These are all “functions” or operations and were never thought of as embodied in some organ, a ghost organ, called, “The Mind.” Now, you might vehemently object and say that everyone knows the mind is nothing more than the brain’s “representation” of its own functions.

Then, I will, in turn, ask you to prove (or at least, to demonstrate) that what you believe is objectively and “scientifically” true. How do you propose to “prove” that?

If I remember well, Einstein’s brain was dissected and no “mathematical function” was found. No extra “bumps” or convolutions and no extra mass, either. Just a plain brain that could have been a dolphin’s or an ape’s. Even Dr. Penfield never said that he knew of some spot in the brain that is the “seat” of the mind. As much as tickled his patient’s brains, he never came upon a spot where at that point, the patient would say, “I am This Woman’s Mind.”

On the contrary, neurologists speak in terms of “charting” the brain: this area processes language and that one retains memories, or whatever. Where then, is this Mind, if it is located, produced or codified by the Brain?

For even software is something that exists, somewhere.

I never heard of software made of pure thought.

When we think of Mind, a number of problems arise:

I. If we think of it as a “fact”: our present culture does not recognize “facts” established by introspection or intuition. Even if each of the 7 billion people on Earth were to state, in one voice, “I am a Mind,” or “I have a Mind,” this kind of affirmative pronouncement of fact would not be considered a “fact.”

There is good reason for such an attitude, when you review, in a historical perspective, the beliefs held by people:

1) That the heart was the seat of all thoughts and emotions
2) That pregnancy was not related to the sexual act
3) That madness had to do with possession
4) That family resemblances were due to reincarnations
5) That dreams were memories of other lives, in other dimensions of Reality
6) That you became what you ate
7) That places and objects carried a type of elemental power that could heal or destroy the body

And the list could go on, for miles of writing.

Here and there, one could argue that that some of these beliefs were intuitive understandings of Radiation, multiple personalities, lector-magnetic belts, or the biochemistry involved in the interaction with some soluble minerals such as Lithium, dissolved in ponds. All of which may be true and fine. Nonetheless, the overall impression remains: people do not know about their own functioning. Furthermore, there is quite a distance separating intuitive understanding from exact knowledge.

II. Most analyses of Mind are built on some Analogy. Unavoidably, the prevalent analogies are always of the mechanical paradigm. In our times, we tend to erect our inventions into paradigms of Reality.

Our current favourite paradigm is the Computer; leading to analyses in terms of Hardware and Software.

We are, presently, stuck in this analogical rut.

The Mind, as “Software” was hailed as an inspired analogy, when, in fact, it is nothing more than labeling. Even by ordinary common sense, one should suspect that this Mind that invented the Computer must be a lot more than its creation.

Biblicism has left us scarred: it taught us to analyze the Creator trough his creation. It has become a habit of thought.

In fact, there might be no way of deducing the nature and functioning of the Mind from cars, water pumps, light bulbs or ATMs!

III. There is serious confusion, at the highest levels of understanding, between Mind and Brain:

1) Freud dealt with mental illness as “Spiritual” snags. He never spoke of “brain diseases” and did not suspect the importance of brain biochemistry.

2) The neurologists have been trying to “map” the brain, on the assumptions of “functions” located in “areas” of the brain. However, the neuropsychologist, on the other hand, does not believe that a brain dysfunction could be located in a specific area of the brain. He views the brain as a whole: where speech is affected, memory might also be affected – as well as perception, self-perception and a dozen other things. He also knows that if you remove half the brain, the other half will still function as a “whole.”

At every step of the road, the identification of Mind as Brain meets serious challenges.

It is, therefore, tempting to say, “There is no Mind” or that “Mind is self-representation, for functional purposes.” In other words, Mind is but a “ghost in the machine,” a virtual reality…which flies in the face of what all of humanity has believed all of the time: that “I” and “me” and “myself” are an absolute and Ultimate Reality! For even those who make such sensational, counter-cultural assertions, say, “I.”

What or who, then, is this “I?” A ghost saying that it is a ghost? A hologram? Furthermore, this “I,” supposedly a ghost, acts very oddly:

1) It often ends its own existence through suicide.

2) It longs to end its solitude through Love, Nationalism, Deism or Pantheism. In other words, to abrogate its autonomy, its sovereignty, by “melting” into some other “I.”

3) It often addresses itself as “you” or “we.” Is it confused about its existence? Is it unable to count? Does it think about itself as a collectivity? Does it adopt various perceptions of itself, at will, in a calculated fashion? Perhaps it simply does not care to count or label itself. It suffices that IT IS, in its own perception of its Reality. Are “I,” “You,” “Myself” or “We” indifferently used, by the Mind, as identifying clusters of various aspects of its Reality?” Now I am an “I” and now a “Them,” depending on the perspective that is required to solve a problem. That the psychiatrist sees signs of dysfunction in such richness of means and articulation does not say much about the psychiatrist!

4) It is a matter of fact that people in a coma, even over long periods of time, have re-emerged “whole,” with the same personality, getting into the act where they had left off. Were their minds “on hold” in some limbo? Neurosurgeons will tell you that the brain is insensitive to pain. No need to anesthetize it. What then, is a migraine or a headache? What is the difference between all the varieties of pain: despair, longing, boredom, tooth-ache or love sickness? That is a lot of pain, for a brain that “feels no pain.”

5) In the case of identical twins and Siamese twins, each twin has a distinct sense of self: an ego, a mind. Why do two brains, sharing the same genes and the same body develop two separate identities when, in some cases, a single identity would have been more efficient and less awkward for survival purposes? In some cases, one twin is a complete person, while the other is very sketchy – as if a growth or extension of the one that is fully developed. Yet, again, both have separate egos and distinct personalities. Sometimes, they even hate each other! In every case we observe that each twin has a separate brain. This seems to reinforce the view that there is no Mind unless there is a Brain. There might be a mindless brain but no “brainless mind” has ever been found! But, then, in extreme cases, some Siamese twins are attached at the head or share internal organs. Why did two separate egos develop, creating problems of coordination, the possibility of conflict of wills, etc.? Wouldn’t it have been more economical, efficient or rational for a single, unified ego to emerge? Obviously, the emergence of the ego has nothing to do with such considerations. What then?

6) A major problem lies in defining what we mean by “Mind,” “a mind.” The meaning alternates as follows: a) Personality, and b) Functions: memory, logic, emotions, perception, self-awareness, dreaming, fantasizing, judging, language and expression, etc., and c) The soul, and d) The brain.
The modern tendency is to believe that all manifestations of Mind are productions of the brain. The question therefore becomes: “What is the brain?” How is it different from kidneys, glands or all the other organs? To say that it is “very complex” says nothing. To detail its bio-chemical functioning also says nothing. For how do enzymes, proteins, adrenaline or serotonin “become” thoughts, emotions, memories or dreams? None of the brain’s “productions” are materials, substantial – in any sense – except for brain waves, which have the most elementary feature of the substantial: they can be measured. Otherwise, none of the brain’s productions have mass or dimension and are not quantifiable. The fact that we say, “One thought,” or “a thought” does not imply, after all, that Thought is subject to numeration. Who knows if that “one” thought is really one in a million? “One thought” is a speech convention, not a factual Reality.

7) In the coinage “Collective Mind,” we find yet another variation on the mind-theme. Trying to analyze, exhaustively, the “contents” of such a notion would be like opening Pandora’s Box! For, who knows what bric-a-brac has been deposited in this “Collective Mind,” by psychologists, anthropologists, and even zoologists. Some see, for instance, the workings of a “Collective Mind” in the swarming of insects, birds and fish. They speak of signals and messages, of a rather mysterious nature, sometimes occult. In another instance, we are told that in human societies, this “Collective Mind” is capable of transmitting “atavic memories” and can determine historical directions, independently of any and all individuals within the collectivity. In this case we do have a disembodied Mind, in the nature of “Fate.”

8) Finally, one more observation – it regards the workings and mechanics of Growth. Looking at this old woman, sitting in the bus, I wonder what her mind was like at age 5, as a young lass of 18, as a 40-year old, etc, all the way up to this very moment in time, where she appears to be somewhere in her early 70’s. Am I to view the growth and ageing of her mind as one, linear continuum, from cause to effect? Or should I view the phenomenon in terms of personalities, in the plural, more or less holding together, like the layers of an onion? How many personalities could one develop, in some 70 years of living? Three, five or twelve? Are they all compatible with each other? Do they form an integrated whole or do they lie, side by side, more or less tolerating each other? When the 5 year-old craves a candy bar, does the 40 year-old remind her that “we” are on a diet? Does the 70 year-old over-rule them both and decides she should, rather, save the money for a rainy day?

Are we one personality or a community of personalities?

Which model is more likely to be the “natural” one?

The best fitted for adaptation and survival of the living organism, this woman, as we know her and we know ourselves? Obviously, the linear continuum is too rigid; too rationalistic. Also, far too difficult to manage, in the faces of paradoxes, contradictions and conundrums, as we find, daily, and repeatedly, the system could snap!

Part 5 to come…

Culture is a diminishment of human endowment

This blog is a forward-flowing narrative.
Please read from the OLDEST post first.
Thank you for dropping in...

In every language, there are popular sayings that express, in the one-liner format, some aspect of popular wisdom. If you eliminate the “wisecracks,” the humour and sarcasm, you might collect a handful of statements that appear to be saying something meaningful and profound.

We tend to dismiss them, as they are garbed in popular language and then seldom found in the discourse of scholars and other prominent personalities.

For instance, if a cab driver or your TV repairman tells you that “what you see is what you get,” what is he really saying and why is he saying it, in that precise formulation? Often, you might find that the statement seems to be disconnected from the circumstances or setting to which it is supposedly related. As if, some higher truth needed to be expressed, to explain the circumstances and justify the actions and attitudes. What is the statement saying? A quick analysis, for purposes of illustration, might yield the following:

1)Things are what they appear to be. You would be wasting your time going beyond appearances. No depth or hidden meanings are involved. No profound deductions could be drawn.

2)That what you expect determines your degree of satisfaction; that your perception determines the way you assess the situation.

In other words, this “what you see is what you get” seems to be a reformulation of “man is the measure of all things,” a 2500-year old statement, pronounced in ancient Greece, by some old Greek called Pythagoras. Why would your TV repairman, in Toronto or Philadelphia, be repeating the very same “mantra,” made popular by obscure scholars of centuries?

The answer might be that this statement (man is the measure of all things) is part of an understanding of reality and the real world; a number of ponderations bundled together, copied in consecrated wording and transmitted by the oral tradition. For this “man is the measure of all things” expresses the very same relativistic view of reality that we also find embedded in “what you see is what you get”.

In other words, it says that there is no Reality, other than what human kind determines and defines for itself. It is, in fact, an anti-intellectual statement. Its purpose is to expose the vanity of abstractionism. However, the statement does not only constitute a judgment on human endeavours to arrive at an understanding of the real world. It also implies a judgment of the World itself. It implies that the world is like a soup or a haze. In the soup you could single out the bits of carrot and say, “it is a carrot soup.” If you single out the peas you could feel justified in saying that “it is a pea soup.” The same for the paradigm of the haze: you only see shadows, all blended together. One says that that shadow is a man while another deems it to be a tree. It would be an error in judgment to deem such statements as expressions of defeatism, despair or fatalism. For they’re always expressed with a jocular sense of irony; in a dismissive manner, like saying, “who the Hell knows?!” or “what does it matter anyhow?!”

Furthermore, the posture is not a deadlock as it affords an exit. It implies that the only thing that truly matters is that you and I reach some consensus. For the “nature” of what we are dealing with will, eventually, be determined by our own combined will and actions. We do not require a divine Perspective to determine what we can do, how to do it and why to do it.

How, then, does one develop a sense of the “Real” world is really like? You might want to stop me, right there, and ask me to define my terms.

“What do you mean by ‘a sense of?’” and “why do you use the term ‘Real,’ since the whole point of this exercise was for you to tell me what the word might mean, at the end of the exercise?” Of course, such questions have been asked a million times before over several millennia. The ancient Greeks and their contemporary Indians were very good at this kind of debating. Theirs are evasive answers, all of which I find frustrating and greatly unsatisfactory. They go something like what follows:

1)There are no words to speak of the Real.

2)You could only know the Real by “transcending” your human nature.

3)You could only know the Real by Revelation or states of Grace. In other words, the Real reveals itself to you.

4)You could suspect the existence of a Real world by the long and disciplined practice of Doubt.

5)The scientific study of our own senses, mental and emotional functioning, reveals the fact that we “process” some external Reality. In other words, we could only know a “translation” of whatever is Out There that acts as a stimulus.

6)There is no Real world. There are no external stimuli. We are in the position of a playwright who directs, stages and acts, in our own plays. Our Reality is self-contained. We produce our own simulations.

7)Any “Sense of Reality” is, simply, Common Sense. All we know are psycho-motor and intellectual associations, which we call knowledge and science.

8)There would be no noticeable difference whether there is or there isn’t a Real world: our functioning would remain the same.

9)There is a Real world. However, since we are made of the same “stuff,” have been shaped by its laws; we cannot identify it as a separate entity. You could never see what you are immersed in. The fish is not aware of the water or the birds of the air.

10)Not only is the world “Real,” it is alive and animate. It contains both mind and matter. Our own minds are proof of the existence something other than Matter. Our minds are either duplicates or approximation of the Universal Mind. This is why our thoughts are reflections of the Reality of the world. Our thoughts are like “memories” of What Is. Because we are highly socialized, we only think social thoughts. We are cut off from the Ultimate Reality because we are wrapped around our selves. As such, we like to believe that our thoughts are our own creations.


The preceding, hopefully, serves to illustrate what is meant by “Real,” the Real World, Reality, the Absolute and “sense of Reality.” They also serve to illustrate the kind of thinking and type of debate that has been going on, perhaps, since time immemorial. For written history is but a small fraction of true History. Scholars can only work with written thoughts, a type of fossil record of the thinking life of humanity.

No-one, however, would get me to believe, that Caveman did not ponder the same questions in his own ways.

In retrospect, we could see that, basically, the debate, however varied, resumes itself to two positions:

1)Reality is reduced to what is within the fold of the social. There is no truth to be found outside culture. It is on such an assumption that the Roman emperor could proclaim his divinity and the Totalitarian State proclaims the primacy of the collective, the nation and the culture. The collective dictates the terms of what is real and what is not. Not so surprisingly, the majority of humanity, for most of historical time, has accepted this position. Its gods are always outside the confines of its Reality. They thunder and punish or cajole and reveal, they send their angels or Only Sons to Redeem this errant humanity; but, they always remain on the Outside. It is, then, a matter of placating and appeasing the gods. In fact, the very existence of a God or Gods demonstrates humanity’s bad conscience: it suspects the existence of a Real world but persists in existing in the Relative world of the Social. The only reality it has constructed for itself and over which it has a measure of control.

The prophets of the Absolute, when they are not beheaded, are taken with a grain of salt, in very small doses. Their message received as if a purgative of some bitter medicine, that one deems “good for the soul” while twisting and wriggling. This is why all religion and philosophy always involve atonement and austerities. The mystic of the Absolute finds it necessary to take to the hills, the desert or live a lonely life in the midst of millions. He considers Civilization the root of all evil; the true Fall; the source and cause of the great rift. To many thinkers, the irony of it all is that, in fact, that at its very peak, Civilization always seems to culminate in Animality. An example, often mentioned by the cynics, is the case of the great Newton ending his life as an idiot, unable to read his own writings or comprehend what used to be his thoughts. Holy books relish tales of Angels sent to Earth, to destroy the sinful cities of the world. The very same hysteria prevails in our times: global terrorism, Armageddon, killer meteors, unstoppable epidemics, the nuclear holocaust, the collapse of the world’s economies and the modern versions of the Anti-Christ, in the guise of foreign dictators. The fear that all of civilization could be snuffed out, in the blink of an eye.

Does this translate as some profound sense of guilt, have we displeased Daddy who art in Heaven?

Is it “the Revenge of the Real?” The conflict between the Real and the Unreal is one of the perennial themes of history, even though historians have always ignored it. They prefer to speak of empires collapsing “because of over-extension” or “excessive centralization,” rather than state the obvious: the said Empire had reached the maximum degree of unreality. Read, “I Claudius,” for purposes of illustrations. How else to explain the dissolution of the Soviet Union, with no world war or civil war?

Like someone said, in the best vernacular: “people have a built-in crap detector.” You can fool all of them most of the time, until this undetectable “point of saturation” is reached. If such a limit does exist, it is because we all have this elusive “sense of Reality.”

Assuming the existence of this crap detector/sense of reality, a number of questions remain that need to be investigated. For instance, we may ask: “is it innate or acquired?” Or “does it come in degrees or are we all endowed (or acquire) the same level or degree of understanding?”

The preliminary interrogations are rather easy to answer. Obviously, some of it must be innate, otherwise, no newborn would have ever survived. For as soon as the doctor slaps your bottom, you start breathing air and react offensively. Blind as you were, in those very first days, after birth, you instinctively suck your mother’s breast (or the nipple of a bottle). Soon, you will be doing the innumerable little actions and functions that keep a living organism alive. Some of these are not at all, “physical,” like associating sounds and colours or motions and silences – to things, people, foods or even times of day. On the other hand, you might not even know, yet, that fire burns or that you are supposed to sleep at night, even if you are not sleepy. There are millions of conventions that remain for you to learn. Obviously, this “sense of reality” must be a mixture of the innate and the acquired.

The best illustration is to be found in sexuality and the sexual acts. Take some male of the species, raised in the strictest of gender “apartheids” one could imagine. He has never seen a naked woman. He knows nothing of female anatomy or psychology. He was raised in a cultural setting of sexual taboos and mythological understanding of procreation. Yet, on his wedding night, he would still be able to perform the sexual act. Of course, he might never, in his lifetime, find out about flirting and foreplay or oral sex and manual stimulation. That aspect of the complexities of sexuality is a matter of learning; of collective experience; that is culture.

2)The second illustration regards thinking.
Even the most primitive human, still to be found on Earth, exhibits all the fineries and complexities of a sophisticated thinking mind. Even though he lives in a forest or the Kalahari Desert, he knows about “what if” and “therefore.” How does he know? Daily, he practices Cartesian Doubt and applies the rudiments of the scientific method. Otherwise, he would not survive! How does he know? Obviously, without schooling, he knows nothing of the Pythagorean Theorem and has no conception of geography. We know, however, that thousands are studying in our Universities at this very moment. I have known such people. People born in the African bush, in some village, where not even a water pump existed. People who grew on manioc, peanuts and monkey stew. Yet, the French and Belgians made them into research scientists, constitutional lawyers and theologians. Many became scholars and writers, in France, for instance.

Somehow, they were capable of passing from a stone age culture to Information Age in less than 20 years – what does this fact tell you? What does it mean?
Obviously, it means that the Innate is vastly more important than the acquired. If tomorrow morning, we were to wake up and find our IQs reduced to 70, we would be stumbling, like sleepwalkers, within our own cultures. We might not even know, anymore, how to use an ATM and we might be fearful of the elevator. On the other hand, the intelligent primitive, as soon as he hits our sidewalks, wants to find out about everything and loves it all. Until he finds out that he cannot have it all!

To our detriment, we fail to notice that, daily, millions of such “primitives” enter our cultures. They are our own progenies, born every minute. How do they adapt, century after century, at all these levels of culture – always with the same endowment? For the child born in 1025 A.D. was not different from the one born in 1999 A.D., in the very same spot – say, some small town in England. The one born in 1025 did not have to contend with the complexities of the present culture. Yet, the one born today, perhaps within the same genetic pool - perhaps even an exact duplicate of his distant ancestor – will take to the ways of the culture, almost instantly. It matters little that it takes 10, 15 or 20 years to inform him and train him, nowadays.

The fact remains that he will absorb the culture and go beyond it.

_____________________________________________

Obviously, there must be, at work, a lot more than culture, training and problems of integration. There is a native ability, an endowment, far greater than any of the cultures that ever existed.

It is the culture, any culture, that cannot keep up with the human endowment.

Throughout what we know about history, we can see that culture subjugates the human element, forcing it into strange ways and, often, unnatural practices. Thus, as a brief glimpse and as an illustration, one could suspect that a Leonardo da Vinci was, really, a man built by Nature for some other century, at a level of cultural development far beyond the one in which he happened to be born.

Isn’t this the reason why we keep records on such figures? Isnt it why we can still draw lessons and inspiration from people who lived long before out times? Instinctively, we know that that they represent a promise.

The promise that Humanity deserves a lot more that what it has been getting.

Part 4 to come...

Conventional reality, personal identity and alternate Realities

This blog is a flowing narrative.
Please read from the oldest post first.
Thank you for dropping in...

Can a little bit of thought militate against such a position?

For one, you could say that that there are no “accidents” in Nature. Even if there were, you would not be able to identify them as such – as they would seem, to you, to be perfectly natural. In other words, you could never prove that an “accident” is accidental. You would have to know all that there is to know about the entire Universe, to be able to say, “this is not a ‘normal’ phenomenon,” – which is absurd! Who, then, is to say that Humankind is an absurd, freakish “accident” in the context of the entire Universe? Perhaps, a coroner or Lloyd’s of London have an operative definition of what an accident “is.”

In such a context, an event is deemed “accidental” only against the background of some statistical basis. Those who say that humans “should not exist,” because the species is a “statistical impossibility,” are idiots playing God. The fact being that humans do exist. That humans exist in a very specific way. The fact outweighs the so-called “statistics” by a trillion to one, at least.

In fact, it might be that humankind’s very existence is the most revealing fact about the nature of the Universe; about the nature of matter; about the nature of Nature. Which is not to imply, as some would like to believe, that humankind is the “purpose” of this Universe. For that is the megalomaniacal expression of that mental imbalance that I suspect in the human race.

Nonetheless, it is an undeniable fact that human beings always felt alienated on their own native planet. It is also true that we have always had good reason to be singled out by the Universe. Our intelligence has separated us from all the other creatures and from Nature itself. We feel like the bastard offspring of a great King or Queen, living in a cocoon of our own making. Why did Nature lavish on us so much awareness and then go on to blight us with self-awareness? All dressed up and nowhere to go, in a hostile Universe, where a mere rock from the heavens could obliterate us and erase our very memory from the Universe.

This is the pessimistic view of the human condition. Every human being believes that he/she is all of Humanity. We feel, mistakenly, that this Universe owes us some explanation but the Universe remains mute.

The notion that some Reality exists behind conventional reality arises from the simple observations of daily life. The might oak tree used to be a mere seed. One is led to suppose the existence of some “programming” within the seed. A child is born from a sexual act. Even a primitive will, eventually, associate the discharge of semen and the female menstruation cycles to the birth of the child. He will soon associate it to other processes in Nature: the seed he plants, the pollination in vegetable life. He becomes aware of very complex processes at work behind the scene. He knows that not all creatures see the same colours or hear the same sounds. He suspects that his appreciation and awareness of Reality depends on his endowment: “What else is there that I will never perceive or become aware of?”

He dreams, at night, dreams over which he has no control. Some of his dreams seem so real that he loses confidence in the reality he knows in his waking state. He even experiences day-dreaming, flights of fancy, moments of terror that challenge his trust in his own mind. He knows that distortions of Reality brought about by drugs and mental illness. What kind mind is that, that could be so severely altered by a mushroom extract of the toxin from a toad or a fish? He knows that all the other animals have minds too. He is then led to ask, “Do all the other creatures see and know the world as I do? Or is there a tiger Reality; a pig Reality; a dog Reality?” What would the world look like seen through the eyes of a raven?

For millennia, our man does not know, yet, that his mind is a function of his brain. When he finds out, it makes things worse for him. For how could thoughts and emotions arise from this grey mush? And why did this grey mush invent chess, art or warfare? Why does it say “I” and “We” or “Why” and “What if?”

The strangest part of all is that it knows next to nothing about itself. It keeps blabbering, “I am” and “I won’t,” endlessly. Why should it know that it is, when it could function, perhaps even better, if it did not know? Why should it want what it knows does not exist? If a rose is pink, it wants it black. It keeps looking for alternative realities , as if trying to escape from its own Reality.

It invents philosophy, to prove that “what is” does not “really” exist and what “does not exist” should have existed! It asks, “Is this ‘mango’ really a ‘mango.’? Or, “Is it only ‘a mango’ by the decree of my own needs and requirements? What is the sound of one hand clapping? And is virtue virtuous?"

Two million years later, he now thinks that he has accessed the very substratum of this “Reality behind the veil.” He thinks it made of quirks and quarks and what he does not know he calls “Dark Matter.” Dark it is, indeed, and darker than ever! For all the subatomic particles in this world, still, does not a world make. Not the kind of world where seeds grow into oak trees and beasties from the Earth travel through Space. There is a long way to go from the Alphabet to the Sonnet!

So, even the very serious scientists look for that substratum of the Real World; the one we do not see; the so-called ghost in the machine. As a child, I took apart the old alarm clock. I could never put it back together. Analysis is, by far, simpler and easier than synthesis. We are good at taking things apart but not so good at putting them back together, as they are, in their present working order. For it is not impossible that “things” could be put together in some other way, and still “work” in some other way. Very tricky. For no one would be able to tell the difference. Suppose you were able to take apart the toaster and put it back together as a beater. In this case, you would be aware of the transformation. In Physics, however, chances are that there would be no such awareness of the sleight of hand. You would say, “Well, it works, Ken, this must be the way it is supposed to work.” That would be it. For you never knew how it worked, in the first place, before it was taken apart!

Thus, all prophecies are self-fulfilling prophecies.

And so it goes with all “alternate Realities”: we take apart what we know (or think we know) and put it back together, all wrong and topsy-turvy. If one combination works, we proclaim victory, even if the toaster is now a beater! We have an “alternate” Reality. The trouble being, that Nature seems very obliging, very “democratic.” It allows you to do this sort of thing. It takes in stride your intrusions because it is a system of infinite possibilities. In Nature, toasters do become beaters; all the time. We call it Evolution! So, you do find what you expect. Why not? After all, you are a factor in the total equation. By definition, there are no “mistakes” in Nature, for everything in it is “natural.”

Since the Pre-Socratic cosmologists/meta-physicians, the notion of Alternate or Parallel Reality and Multiple Universes has been vague. The ides is very ancient and takes on many variations:

1) At the level of religion, the ancient texts speak of a world “balanced” between Good and Evil. A cosmic struggle, that we might sense but do not perceive. In other words, the meaningfulness of the Universe lies in an abstract theme; one that has nothing to do with the daily lives of the beasties on this Earth. Nonetheless, all living creatures are trapped in this cosmic struggle.

2) In a variation on the same theme, the Visible and Invisible worlds are described as Real and Material. They become the Lower and the upper Worlds, in a physical sense. The good God had to abandon this lower world and it is up to us to struggle, in order to rejoin Him, in his Upper World, where Matter is finer, less gross – and where everything is more “spiritual.”

Here, we have the “Russian doll syndrome”: one Universe within another; that is, two parallel realities, that still function as one – even though their functioning, in unison, results from a permanent state of war.

3) At the cosmological level, we have a Universe involved in this dual process of destruction and reconstruction. We can become aware of the process of destruction but not of the secret and invisible processes of reconstruction – except for what we witness on Earth, in terms of life regenerating itself.

4) Add to that a kind of Cosmic Theory of Evolution, that invokes a process of refinement, from Matter to Spirit. This, often, includes Reincarnations (ad infinitum), whereby the stone “soul” has to learn to become a vegetable “soul,” then be promoted to other types of “Soul,” endowed with higher mental and spiritual qualities. A very elaborate cosmic process, behind the scenes, that constitutes a “parallel Reality.”

5) With the Pre-Socratics, the Greeks gave us the notion of a “Substratum,” underlying the natural processes and phenomena of Nature, on Earth. In other words, a hidden, underlying Reality, that is “the Cause” of everything that we observe on Earth: from the changing seasons to life and death and from the movement of the stars, to the reasons for warfare. This theory peaks with Democritos, in an early version of Atomic Theory. To this day, we are still smashing atoms in search of some hypothetical (and very elusive) subatomic particles, the Substratum of Reality; in fact, a parallel Reality. The ultimate expression, of this idea, remains the equation: (E=MC2), the ultimate alchemical formula to convert gross Matter into Spiritual Energy and, perhaps, vice versa. Truly, a human formulation of a divine thought! But then, Einstein came from a long-standing “prophetic” tradition!

6) We also inherited from some of the ancient Greek philosophers, the idea of an “anti-Earth.” This one, a very concrete astronomical fantasy. The “reasoning” runs along these lines: since everything has its opposite – to keep things balanced – there must be a counterpart to our Earth, hidden from sight, perhaps somewhere behind the sun. We do not have any details about this counterpart of our planet but, it is safe to assume, that in the imagination of these thinkers, all phenomena and events ran “in reverse” on this counter-Earth. From there, to further imagine that this must be the abode of the Dead or the Hades of Satan is but one small thinking step. Yet another conception of some parallel Reality.

I am sure that many more illustrations could be found. My point being, that the notion of “parallel Reality” is an ancient one, long before “Quantum Physics” could be pronounced.

From the preceding, I draw the following observations:

1) That the most fantastical beliefs are grounded in some measure of reasoning, based on one or very few assumptions that go unchallenged.

2) The longest-lasting assumption (presumption) is the notion of “balance.” That is, the idea of Equilibrium. To every force, there must be a counter-force. Hence, the idea of Bipolarity, as best illustrated in Electricity. The flow of electricity is vectorial: it has a direction, from one pole to the opposite pole.

3) The underlying assumption being that of a Static Universe: that is, a Universe in a Steady-State. An idea, best illustrated, in the famous pronouncement of the French Physicist, Laplace: “nothing is created; everything is destroyed; everything is transformed.”

4) Even in Modern Times, the idea of Anti-Matter constitutes, in fact, the potentiality for a counter-Universe; that is, a Parallel Reality. No one was ever brave enough to tell us how things would work in such a Universe, but some science-fiction writer, over the last decades, have volunteered a few insights:
a) Water would run uphill.
b) People would be born very old and die in their Mother’s wombs.
c) Events would travel from the Future to the Past.
d) Etc…

Now, if you were to assume a cyclical Universe, it would follow, logically, that “History repeats itself” and that “to know the Future, you must know the Past.” Hence, great care will be given to recording the Present and finding out every scrap of information about the Past. The Past would be revered and Golden Ages celebrated; as “fossil records” of great value. Probably, the world would also be ruled by a Gerentocracy and the Antique Collector be viewed as a model citizen.

Finally, if you were to assume that the Universe is ruled by absolute Hazard and Serendipity, then a number of queer conclusions could be drawn:

1) That the Universe’s apparent coherence and organization is but an “accident.” That is, what we see is but a temporary formation soon to break down, again, into Chaos. That is, Physics and Cosmology only describe a “moment” in the existence of the Universe. A moment later, and there will be no more observers and nothing to observe. Back to the “primordial soup.” (By the way, a very honourable conception, with a long pedigree and impeccable references. Some very brilliant people have held this belief).

2) Since the Universe is neither moral nor “Logical,” except now and then, in an accidental fashion – it follows that Humanity cannot relate to the Universe in which it exists. Humans can neither draw Morality nor Reason from the Universe. Humans remain in supreme isolation, accountable only to themselves. Humanity becomes its own God. As nothing matters, it can think, feel and do whatever it pleases.

Whatever you can get away with becomes the right thing to do.

Absolute Pragmatism.

The Engineer displaces the Scientist, the Philosopher and the Moralist. If it “works” and serves some purpose, then not only is it valid and good but even “holy.”

For whatever holds together, even for a short while, becomes the ultimate test of Validity, in a transient Reality.

3) All knowledge becomes Relative; no more Absolutes; no more (E=MC2) equations, either. Any so-called “Law of Nature” might be “true”, in some applications and false in other applications. The application will determine the “truth index” of any scientific pronouncement.

4) Doubt becomes obsolete, even a nuisance. For when the entire Universe is in doubt, what we require are certainties. Perhaps small ones, but lots of them!

In the preceding, I am attempting to depict how Culture dictates a “Sense of Reality.” The whole process might start from a few assumptions but, soon, entire societies are organized on the basis of such beliefs.

Once one is born and formed by a society, it becomes almost -almost – impossible to conceive of anything else. There is a closure of the Horizon that takes place (the cultural horizon, that is). The culture becomes set in its ways and dissent is stamped out, one way or another. It acquires a coherence that easily passes for Perfection. It becomes unassailable. What is outside the Culture becomes the Un-Real.

Some such cultures do exist and have already existed for several millennia. They change on the outside but remain the same on the inside.

The force of Inertia is greater than the violence of Revolution.

Such cultures are regulated by ancient beliefs, expectations and mental dispositions that, when blended into coherent formations, one might call, “cultural matrices.”

To illustrate: what we call Fatalism is, in fact, a nexus of assumptions, at the intellectual level, supported by a set of beliefs and attitudes at the moral and emotional level. It “works” something like this:

1) Reality is impermanent.

2) What now seems True could, tomorrow morning, prove to be totally “Un-True.”

3) In any choice, there is a large area of doubt. That is, a large margin of indifference. Hence, any choice, for all I know, is as good as any other. This is the “Principle of Indifference.” Hence, to abstain from any choice is the best choice.

4) If an intelligent choice could, at best, be only “probable,” and as the probable will not necessarily be the moral or ethical – then it is better “to wait and see” and indentify a trend. A seasoned gambler will see this as an intuitively graspable assumption.

If all of these considerations take place instantly – as if in one single “mental motion” – then we have a reactive mode built and programmed within the individual. This would be a “cultural matrix.” It would be similar to a formula or equation: you feed it the new variables and it spits out the new “answers” in accordance with the same old algorithm. Everything is new but nothing important is changed. This is the secret of the infamous resilience of old cultures that resist the New Order and other fairy and Grimm Tales.

Now, if this were really true (and truly real!), then we must have caught this “Sense of Reality” by the tail or some other part of its elusive constitution. If we could “break down” a culture to its most basic cultural matrices, the very algorithms by which it processes what it receives from the Outside World, we would be able, if not to predict, but understand its future directions and decisions. For if the “algorithms” are “real,” then some concepts will be accepted and many will be rejected. Something like the proverbial “square peg in the round hole.”

In the preceding, I am trying to illustrate the hypothesis that our sense of what is “Real” does not follow from some “Eureka Factor” or “Conversion on the Road to Damascus” syndrome – but from prior experiences; reified and codified into precise bundles. These bundles work as mini-programs, algorithms, or “sifts.” Daily, they process the real world, at the speed of thought (the fastest in the Universe). They sift Reality, in a highly prejudiced and biased manner – in fact, “with extreme prejudice,” as an assassin might say.

Now, you might ask, “How do these mental algorithms manage to survive thousands of years, against the ebb and flow of so many events and forced transformations?”

Your question would then imply two sub-questions: one regarding the modes of transmission and one necessitating and explanation regarding the resiliency and durability of such mental constructs. Both find a simple answer as follows: Oral tradition is the mode of transmission: children’s tales; proverbs; sayings and adages; religious mythology; folklore; taboo; popular literature and whatever the Anthropologists and whatever other “ologists” have been probing, for the last few centuries. Add to this, of course, various Priesthoods as guardians of the collective memory. Somewhere, in the bulk of such literature, one could find the exact modalities of transmission.

As for the resiliency, it is a matter I would refer to the Psychologist of the Jungian variety. How is a collective identity formed? How are atavic idiosyncrasies formed? What is a “collective consciousness?”

It suffices for me to say that, in my experience, people are always found with specific identities. That they consider their identify to be the greatest good one could possess. That the very function of a true (or “natural” identity) is to link the individual to some Ancestry: an occult community that joins the living and the dead.

That the function of one’s identity is to provide him/her with a specific stance – an existential posture from which is derived meaning and meaningfulness.

That an “identity” is the supreme algorithm, through which we process Existence, so as to humanize it and find the terms on which this Existence becomes livable.

If that is what “identity” means, then one could see how resilient it would be. There is no catastrophe great enough, be it Deluge, Armageddon, or Satan’s Arrival, that could not be “processed” by some human identity, somewhere, at some time.

For it is the very function of identity to help the individual and the collective survive the Events & Phenomena of this world or any other Worlds.

Part 3 to come...

Conventional Reality

Main Points:

1) The concept of "conventional reality" (formalized reality).
2) The notion of a "multiplicity of realities" (alternate realities).
3) The notion of "reality formation" (or "sense of reality').
4) The distinction between sense-data and conceptualizing; the mind "correcting" the senses.

Discussion:

From simple, direct observation it is clear to me that what we call "culture" is a process of "reality formation."

Thus, from one's cultural programming, one believes that "two plus two equals four" and that "rivers do not flow upwards," while another is taught that "there are two worlds: one visible and the other invisible," or that "Man is the measure of all things."

We do not have a complete catalogue, of an encyclopedic nature, that details the "contents" of a culture. There might never be such a compendium and one is not really needed. Nonetheless, one can, generally, arrive at a sound understanding of what such a catalogue might include: from the Cat's Cradle to the Tao Te Ching and from Democracy to The Resurrection. In fact, a simple dictionary could serve as a good start for the repertoire of such a catalogue of the contents of a human culture. For each word is, already, a convention; a kind of small box, in which an aspect of conventional reality is "packaged," in sound and script; ready for transmission and dissemination.

Say the word "adverb" and eventually, it will lead you to another word, "modifier." Soon, you are led to a whole bunch of other words, such as "inclusion" or "relation." Subconsciously, you are told that some things, in the real world, have no other reason to exist but to "modify," alter, increase or decrease the circumstances or level of intensity, of some other things - which makes you wonder if such things are "real" in themselves. Does the word "more" indicate an existential "something", an entity, that exists and has material substance? Obviously not. At best, it refers to a degree, a relative degree, within a relationship, between two things being compared. But if I were to say, "more careful than...", then this carefulness is not "real," in the sense that it is not substance or material. At best, it represents a "state of mind." Its synonym might be "alertness" or "caution." Now, I am asked to believe, subconsciously, that there could be, that there is, more or less, a "state of mind." But isn't a state of mind, also, an intention? I must, then, also believe that intentions are liable of degrees of intensity.

Further, I am led to deduce that people are capable of intention "because" they are free agents and endowed with free will. Now, this free will might be confused, by the uninformed, as "something" in the nature of an organ like a liver or a kidney. This naive soul might, then, ask: "where is my free will located?" And his answer, most likely, might be, "Your soul 'has' free will." What does "has" mean, exactly, in such a context? Is free will a "function" of the soul? Some sort of "ability?" Or is it a "propensity?" Or is it an "endowment" granted by the deity? Each word determines a new model of the reality of this "soul."

If you then ask, "How might I find out that I do have this soul-thing? How do I become aware of its existence, within me? How is it that I am not permanently in touch with it?" One might, then, get a "circular" answer such as, "Your soul is manifested to you, in your acts of volition, in the choices you make, in your awareness of the world," and so on.

At this point, I am asked to believe that a ghost exists, within me, more "real" than my "ordinary self" - and which produces choices, moods, perceptions, conceptions, etc., and whose sole purpose is "to know God."

As we are getting deeper into the machinery of the collective mind, we are, clearly, losing our footing onto any ground for a real Reality, whatever it may be. We are, mostly, busy examining our Selfhood, to ourselves, in whatever terms that strike our fancy.

To further complexify and complicate matters, we also like to use many words to indicate the same "thing." Thus, we alternately use "soul," "mind" or "intellect"; when, in fact, each word carries different connotations, all equally vague.

Even worse: for each word, we have to fantasize a context in which this word is operative. Thus, "intellect" is operative in the context of mental operations such as mathematics, science or art; while "mind" is meaningful in the context of different operations, such as awareness, self-awareness, emotions, thoughts and such. "Soul," on the other hand, is only usable in a religious context, in the sense of "existence"; the meaning of human existence, the relating to the Totality or the Deity.

Each word carries its own implications: there is no Soul without a God or some Anima Mundi, in a pantheistic sense. There is no Mind without a dualistic assumption that separates "dumb" matter from some finer material, out of which this "mind" is made. You have to assume two "dimensions" to Reality, one within the other, like Russian dolls. There is no Intellect without mathematics, the arts, medicine and all the aspects of problem-solving, in an engineering sense.

Now, why wouldn't all of these words: Soul, Mind, Intellect. Anima or Persona indicate the same reality? If, indeed, there were such a factual, material or substantive entity? For such an Entity would, indeed, be capable of all of these potentialities and capable of performing all of these functions.

So, now, I am also asked to believe that any "Real" self, like some kind of vegetable, has two parts - one visible (the stalk) and one invisible (the root). That I have to surmise, guess, theorize: to know who and what I might "Really" be. In other words, I am asked to be "schizoid!"

And so it is that a "conventional Reality" arises within culture. That is, a Reality based on convention - or, if one prefers, on collective insanity! Now, this process of formalizing Reality mostly goes unnoticed and no one ever truly understands how it really works. We only see its surface phenomena: of laws, institutions, norms and such. Some expressly stated, mostly passed on by a very lively oral tradition, which no one could track down - even if they could make it their express purpose. Social scientists know what they know and like to think that this is all there is to know.

The point being that there surely is a conventional description of Reality and the world. Recently, science has taken on the job of kindly providing us with its own model of Reality. A very confused one: where some stellar formations seem to be older than the entire Universe that contains them; where the entire Universe was started by an imaginary "point" existing in no Time or Space, which, suddenly decided to "explode" and keep on expanding in the Nothingness of the Void, until it implodes upon itself as a result of two or three "forces" (that might be only one). Here, in this model, I am asked to believe:
1) That Nothingness (Void) actually "exists" - which contradicts the meaning of "to be" even in ordinary parlance.
2) That all of "What Is" could be and was reduced to one imaginary "point," some sort of "seed" that contained all of what exists today. A very neat trick: for what I am also supposed to believe is "dumb" matter, a huge construction game of infinitely small particles, numbering 30, 300, 3000, or an infinite number (of sub-atomic particles).
3) That I might be existing in one of an infinite number of Universes; all endowed with an infinity of parallel histories, but that, somehow, only one history at a time materializes.
4) That my "mind" does not "really exist", other than as a function of my brain as a self-representation: the ghost in the machine. However, and with no contradiction implied, notwithstanding that, I am also asked to believe that information rules the material Universe - as if it were, it too, yet another "ghost" in the Universal machine.

And so on...the catalogue of contents could not be itemized, as there really is no beginning or end to the fabric of culture.

Over the millennia, layers of cultural fabrications have accumulated and one must live with contradictions, falsehood and all sorts of insanities - if one is to remain the son of his father, the husband to his wife and a friend to the neighbour...in other words, it is very difficult to remain socialized, in any society, at any time, if you are to challenge the deeper premises. Hence, the reason for so many sages of the past to having looked for "salvation" in deserts, mountain tops, drug-stupors or solipsism of one kind or another: living, in effect, like Stoics, Skeptics, Epicureans, Rationalists, Existentialists, Nihilists, Vitalists, or as blind ritualists and fetishists of religious observances. They are all the same to me.

It is, therefore, normal and even healthy for one to suspect that Conventional Reality is but a sham, a con-game, the purposes of which being power, control, and Social Organization. Nothing much to do with "Reality." Hence, this "reality" remains as conjectural as ever; as problematic - though the elements of mystery and awe have been eliminated, thanks to the few thousand individuals, over the centuries, who have passed on to us the premises of Doubt. Not a small achievement, given the overwhelming dominion of cultures!

Hence, the questions remain: "Is there a Reality 'behind the veil' of conventional reality? What might this 'Absolute' Reality be? Can we transcend our self-hood; jump out of our skin; perform a quantum leap so as to glimpse this Reality? Is there, within our human nature, some untapped, never-used ability, native to all who exist in this Universe, that we never or seldom use in our social lives, simply because it is either unusable, needless or because we struggle against it?"

For millennia, if not for most of human time, people might have thought that they could not swim. They might have had taboos against swimming - thought it unnatural and unbefitting the "True Human Being." As a result, they could not swim. The same being true of flying, climbing mountains, exploring caves or deep water sea-diving. If you imagine the sea as the abode of the monsters, it will restrict your navigational skills to the shores of your native waters. If you believe that "if God wanted people to fly, He would have given them wings," then it will be very long, indeed, in human history, before a Leonardo da Vinci starts conceiving of mechanical wings.

If you believe in telepathy or empathy, you will never be able to tell apart your thoughts and emotions from the "other" - foreign thoughts and emotions which come to you, from the outside, as "broadcasts" from other minds. Even worse, if your culture believes all such claims to be an "illness" that should be treated and chemically controlled - then, indeed, any such ability would not only be wasted but even turn out to become detrimental to your freedom and well-being!

Now, suppose, that all who exist, within this Universe, are endowed with all the knowledge they could ever use, at birth? That they are born equipped with all the necessary means and ways to acquire Total Knowledge (and knowledge of the Totality)? Just suppose, for a minute. Just suppose, for the sake of argument. Contemplate this hypothetical scenario: you are born "complete," perfectly adapted, "at One with the One"....but you refuse to believe it. You demand proof of that which you are. Like in the tales, where the peasant is told that he was born the King's twin. You disbelieve and demand proof. Facing the latest portrait of the King, your eyes do not see the resemblance. When told the story as to how you became separated at birth from your Royal twin, you find the tale too fantastic and disbelieve it. You, then, reject all notions of claiming back your Royal tile and prerogatives. And...you remain a peasant!

Here, I adopt, playfully, a version of Pascal's Gamble: faced with two equally indifferent hypotheses (that is, neither one could be reasonably argued on the basis of fact), why not opt for the more pleasant one? Now, you could say that neither one should be considered. I could, on the other hand, argue that both hypotheses are, really, attitudinal choices and that attitude is, mostly, a matter of decision. How could I exist in this Universe without some kind of attitude? The absence of information is no excuse. Faced with three possible attitudes (or states of receptivity) the third being that of suspended judgment or Agnosticism, I am entitled - if not obligate - to choose my stance, even if it is arbitrarily.

Obviously, it becomes a matter of temperament and experience. Having lived the negative and agnostic attitudes, I may prefer the positive ones. I may well hence assume that I "belong" in this Universe, whatever it may be. The undeniable fact being that I am a product, a child of this Universe. I could then assume that whatever I "am," actually and potentially is perfectly adapted and attuned to the Universe.

I can alleviate all of my anxieties by merely saying to myself, "You come from nowhere; you are going nowhere; there is no where 'else' to go; you might as well settle down and "be at One with the One."

Then, I can glorify the whole bit, with the glorious title, "Positive Fatalism."

In the absence of divine knowledge, I am in the position of a gambler who can only play the odds. The only certainty I could achieve is, still, that "I think, therefore I must be." Whether I am an animal or the coming superman is a matter of indifference to me. I am not bigoted, either against animals or against supermen. In the grand scheme of things, both are equal. Neither will achieve immortality, of any kind. Both are equal. The only difference being that the superman is a legend in his own mind...the animal being, in fact, more realistic - as he does not conceive of Messiahs, Emperors of the World, Redeemers or Revelations from The Great Beyond, carved on stone tablets or written in sheep's entrails! Such delusions, unhappily, are only the lot of Humankind. Perhaps, the result of some racial dysfunction of the brain.

There is no evidence, that could reasonably convince me, as to the fact that I am an "accident" of Nature, condemned to exist as a separate reality, a Cosmic Freak.

To be clear on this point: I do not "believe" that "I" was ever preordained to exist. My existence itself is the result of randomness, chance, serendipity and chaos. But now, "I" am "here."

Part 2 to come...