ON THE DYNAMICS OF BEING AND THE
REAL
ANIL MITRA PHD, © 1999 – 2000
STATUS SET AND REFORMATTED June 4, 2003
Document status, June 4, 2003
Inactive, discontinue for
Site II
Replacement: content has
been absorbed to Metaphysics
III - THE ROLE OF IMAGINATION,
EXPERIMENT OR OBSERVATION AND INTUITION
IV - DYNAMICS OF REALITY AND THE
HYPOTHESIS OF BEING
|
KB |
= |
Knowledge and being |
|
NSPU |
= |
Nature, society, mind or psyche, universal-unknown or Being |
|
EIT, E' |
= |
Experiment [new idea, concept], implies, true?, new idea |
We were talking about love - what it is! The purpose was not to define
love but to ask what are we doing when we imply
that there is something, e.g. love, and try to say what that thing is.
The example used was of two mental health patients, hospitalized in an acute
care facility, in bed together for a brief period. I said that they experienced
love; it may have been the only kind of experience of love that they may ever
have. I was not judging the quality of the love or whether the act was healthy
or whether it should be permitted. Someone, married twenty years, judged
angrily "that's not love." I disagreed saying love is many things to
many people; I did not want to prejudge; I did not want to exclude anyone from
love regardless of circumstance or capacity. I thought, tentatively, you are in
love when you feel in love. That could be for a brief period or for an extended
one.
What is love? It is a human-social
relation. In this sphere there are no pre-givens because we are creating as we are understanding. Values are involved, too. One society may
value individual worth and so promote feeling; another may value a stable
environment for upbringing and so define love as a value and as stable; the
actual thing will be multi-valued in any given society with different weights;
opinion, criticism, action, reality and survival will be arbiters. There are
realms, in this case, the social one, where ideas such as "love" [i] are multi-valued and multi-functional - this is related
to but not the same as ambiguous, [ii] are just not given by nature and to be
discovered but are also creating.
But in the realm of physics and
some other sciences we are, it seems, only knowing and not creating. Force,
mass and acceleration are fairly universal and our definitions approach
intrinsic qualities; the concepts evolve: from concepts and theories we have
predictions; some agree; others do not; concept-theory is modified and more of
experience comes within the compass of reality; concept-theory approaches
nature and intrinsic qualities. We may say.
But when we consider existence;
that it may come about from nothing/no-thing we see that existence and its
nature come into being at the same time and there is nothing absolute about the
existent or its nature; nor is the distinction between existence and its nature
[pattern, structure] absolute. And so I want to see the realm of the absolute
in science also as fluid.
Individuals have some
influence on creation of and in the social realm. Consider “love” – it has
biological and social elements. Because of biology there are aspects of love
that are the same for all societies. Because of the social component, the
nature and expression has variation among societies and individuals.
In contrast, the conventional
wisdom is that the physical realm is given to human individuals and societies. Of
course we can make physical changes: we can alter the arrangements of physical
entities: that is what makes technology possible. However, whereas humans have
influence over the essential nature of love they do not influence the essential
nature of matter. Thus the fundamental nature of physical entities as described
in quantum mechanics, the theory of space, time and matter may be discovered
but not created by human beings.
What of biological properties of
organisms? That seems to be part way between the social and the physical. We
can change the characteristics of the individuals in a species through
selection and even through alteration of the genetic code. We cannot yet create
organisms but we can, in small ways, alter there “essence” – and that is, in
fact, being involved in the process of creation… for creation is not something
that happened at some distant past time but is ongoing.
The same is true for the physical
realm. Although the bulk of “creation” may have occurred at some distant past
time near the “origin of the universe,” and we may infer that from the fact
that we do not detect changes in the fundamental physical laws and constants,
this is a guarantee only that we have not detected change. And, of course, “the
origin of the universe” is a name for our ignorance of what is beyond or what
came before or will come after. Therefore, we may learn to affect the change in
the physical essences.
This brings us to the question of
the limits of [human] being. We have concepts of such limits but clearly these
concepts are very limited; and, likely, they are vastly conservative.
This brings me back to the sphere
of the human. What is the nature of that and what are its limits in time,
space, imagination and being? First, in the conventional compass of
And round to the sphere of the
social. We now see ourselves as creative in the spheres of the mind; possibly
of the physical; and therefore, though not without limits, in the social.
But what are these limits? If I am
ignorant about nature and if what I regard as certain knowledge is only a
practical hypothesis is not the same true about the limits that I set? I accept
some limits as immediate but none as absolute.
Whatever the origin and path, the goal: what is the maximum that an
individual can be/do/know.
This makes me full of awe.
The answer [though it started as
intellectual] is not only through thinking and knowledge. It is also with one's
whole self [being] and life. I.e., cannot be answered by sitting down one
Sunday afternoon and dreaming, or by graduating from a degree program... though
these are part of the process... before searching all KB must experience what
others did/learned and specially what cultures/societies did/learned, specially
my one [or two or three...].
How
1.
Map =
all KB
2.
Experience,
learn
3.
Repeat
In the common and the immediate, K may be [at least seem, but this is
not really common experience] black and white but on the boundary between K and
un-K, between B and un-realized, there must be fluidity.
Being, reality are themselves fluid
in long time, distant places [origins, what came before origins...?] and other
remotes - very small = atoms, DNA..., the unconsciousness...
In turn that fluidity ® the common,
e.g. knowledge of disease, psychology [Freud as extension of common sense... Nagel's article]... because the common and its meaning are part of
the whole.
Why so long?
Therefore, a "whole
life." Must go to the boundary of K, B, Reality
= live out; transform, construct, experiment, discover...
Experiment with realms of Being = ideas,
test. Ideas = others, mind; test = what use and what result. Nature-Society-Mind-Being
[N-S-P-U; P because p = psyche, and U because u = unknown; and even Society is
a trip. N ® S ® P ®
®®
U.
And my own "baggage."
But its not all mere baggage. I think my experience
makes my thought and experience, if less neat and clean than some academic
system, more real. "SV" was, and is, partially, a choice.
The story
Structure
Points to reflect from above
Narrative
Imagination
The purpose of this part is to
establish the idea that imagination is necessary to the growth of knowledge. Similarly,
other forms of experimental construction are necessary to the growth of other
forms or aspects of being. I also want to criticize the practical idea that
knowledge grows by careful accumulation of information -- what is sometimes
called the practical approach.
Consider a major vehicle for the
expression of knowledge -- language. Was language discovered by searching and
accumulation? Or consider ideas -- were ideas discovered by searching? No,
ideas and language were not discovered at all. Are ideas new? Consider that
five billion years ago there were no ideas [on earth] simply because there were
no creatures.
The history of knowledge, e.g. in
the common sphere and in science – which are so very interactive, shows that
imagination and observation interact. Imagination determines for what it is
that we look; observation [experiment] finds it. Imagination tells us to look
for a neutrino or, even a tree, and tells us that what we saw in fact
corresponded to the neutrino. The interaction is more intricate than described
with much interaction and many sources and kinds of corroboration. Without the
imaginative construction of ideas [in evolution of percepts; note, also, the
interaction of ideas and percepts] we see nothing but chaos.
There are two main spheres where
knowledge is sometimes supposed to grow or become known by slow accumulation. They
are the common sphere and science.
Lets look
at science first. What are the key constructs of science? First establish the
key areas of science; these must be: the realms of the physical, of life, of
society and the mind. Of these, the best established are the natural sciences -
physical and life science. The major aspects must be form and dynamics. Thus
the major aspects of physical science must be particles and fields; and the
dynamics of the same. Were particles discovered? These things are way to small to be seen. The Greek philosophers considered,
alternatively, matter to be continuous and to be atomic well before anything
was established. Later in connection with the behavior of gasses, an atomic or
molecular hypothesis was assumed and properties of gases predicted. Comparison
allowed calculation of the masses [weights] of atoms and molecules. Extension
of the ideas allowed the establishment of formulas of compounds. All this was
well before anything like a direct verification of the existence of atoms was
possible. It was not just imagination of the existence of atoms but also of
their properties and how they might interact, all highly speculative in a sense
- i.e. imaginative, that permitted these developments. Of course it was well
into the 20th century before doubts about the atomic constitution of
matter mostly disappeared and an idea became regarded as fact. Next, look at
the life sciences. Things like the circulation of blood, the nature of nerve
impulses. Five hundred years ago no one had any idea that there were any such
things; today these are known facts. When we know that a vein carries blood, or
a nerve transmits an electrochemical impulse we can cut up a cadaver directed
by that knowledge and see veins and nerves and brains and know what it is that
we see. But when we have no idea what it is that we are looking for, no idea
that blood circulates or where it circulates through, what we see when we cut a
cadaver even if we are careful observers is meat and tubes and so on. The discovery of circulation by William Harvey, the discovery of nerve
transmission were slow difficult acts that included a significant
imaginative input. Or, consider evolution. What is it that we actually see? Do
we see evolution in action? Mostly, no -- though we can see adaptive changes in
bacteria, fruit flies, moths in industrial areas but these are minor examples
and are seen because we know what we are looking for as a result of the already
established ideas and theories of evolution. Come back to the question - what
do we actually see? We do see a great variety of living organisms; that is
interesting because there is a kind of continuum to that variety and we must be
interested to ask not only where do the organisms and species come from but,
also, what is the source of the variety and its continuum. The variety and
continuum are important because they do form part of the argument for evolution.
But we are still focusing on what we see; in addition to the variety of living
organisms we see only some dead fossils. Its hard to
see fossils of non-vertebrates; soft tissue does not preserve well. So the
whole idea of evolution -- the idea itself, the various constituent ideas that
constitute the theories, the use of sparse fossil data [not as sparse as some
opponents of evolution hold] and the discovery of alternative kinds of
evidence, the detailed application to the variety of organisms and structures [eyes...]
was a vast imaginative act. Remember, also, that evolution did not come into a
vacuum; it stood against the weight of established religion that was held not
only by the people but also by the scientists themselves who, therefore, had to
persevere against their own established faith and cherished prejudice. What of
the "sciences" of mind? Despite the discipline of psychology, science
must be regarded as "groping" in this sphere: what is mind, how is it
possible that inert matter can have feeling, think?
When we look back there are a
number of reasons that we do not see the imagination. First, what was an
imaginative construction is now seen as a fact. This is not wrong, but the
transition from a tentative, imaginative construction to an established fact
takes a relatively long period in which the ideas are slowly confirmed in many
different ways and areas of application and in many ways some involving long
trains of reasoning from the hypothesis to the prediction. Second, when the
textbooks are written various competing ideas that were not successful and were
so forgotten; we do not see, in looking back, the imaginative process or its
highly tentative and experimental nature.
The previous paragraph explains, to
a large degree, why imaginative construction is not appreciated in the common
sphere. Actually, there is a distrust of imagination. Not a complete distrust;
and it is true that imagination is held in higher regard in the modern west
than it had been; but there is still distrust of imagination in its application
to the real world... and some of that distrust comes from not appreciating the
role of imagination in knowing. The distrust of imagination is not unrealistic.
On a day to day basis, facts are important. Not every imaginative act
constructs something that describes a part of the world. Imagination is
difficult; some people are better than others; there always has been a tension
between seers and the common.
When it comes to all KB,
imagination, experiment, construction are essential. Without
them there is nothing. Imagination is not just important, it is necessary. It's
the only way something can become more than it is.
Experiment
Already talking
about experiment above. What do I mean by experiment? It is something
whose outcome I do not know. So, of course opening up to "failure."
But, given that the [at least "a"] process of coming to know in areas
where I [humankind, other being] do not know is: E ® I ® T? ® E'... failure is
not Failure, it is part of getting to know. But also,
by experiment, I mean not only ideas but experiment with my being... what can I do, what can I become. Hinted at this earlier when I
talked about the limitations of my body in time and space and at the connection
to evolution; and through the ideas of and like Yoga [yoga is yoke or union = a
discipline for seeing, knowing the relationship between the finite me and the
infinite all; except while the "sacred" texts are sometimes venerated
as absolute, I think they are an experiment... but one of the better
experiments done by humanity in this realm. Vision quest may be another such
experiment; a third experiment that of people such as Meister Eckhart.] But the
key idea is that in an area where I do not know what the possibilities are I
must use my imagination and experiment with my life. SV is such an experiment,
living in nature is another. Others: yoga type
exploration, v.q., etc. see sources [J, J99... ]... but more importantly,
experiment with ways = dynamics of reality and limits.
Yoga, for example, is a kind of
experiment with being.
Intuition
Intuition is a guide. What do I
mean by intuition. It's a sense. You have to work in
areas of dark and semi-light to develop intuition. Some people have a lot of it
[good intuition... everyone can have not so good intuition] and it can be
cultivated. Why? Because you can not have final clear knowledge of what you are
looking for if you are looking for something that you do not completely know?
Why look? Where would we be if no one looked? There would be no science, no
Intuition lives among the following
boundaries: light and dark or knowledge and ignorance, observation and
imagination, conscious and unconscious, percept and concept – or the multitude
of data and the integration of data into objects, the process and the result of
knowing.
Dynamics of Reality
Test the real using all ways and
sources. Ways: knowledge imagination and selection, action and construction or
transformation of being; and the interaction of knowledge and transformation.
The idea is testing out the nature
of reality by (i) using all sources, (ii) testing the
nature of [what are thought to be] limits, search and construction, (iii) learning
how to do this. More details elsewhere.
Hypothesis of Being
We saw rational doubts about the
limits of being. A crude hypothesis “the hypothesis of being” is the idea that
the individual can know and be all. To refine this hypothesis: eliminate
nonsensical expressions such “the individual can be what cannot be,” and refine
the hypothesis by introducing a hierarchy of being, a dynamic process of
transformation, and questioning the nature of limits and boundaries.
A crude hypothesis.
Individual being can KB all. Eliminate nonsense examples. Refine. More details...
Ways of knowing. Knowing
that I know. [Knowing2 that I know1.]
ANIL MITRA | RESUME | HORIZONS ENTERPRISES™ | HOME | SITE-MAP | USEFUL
LINKS | CONTACT
PHILOSOPHY OF MIND