Where Descartes pages and pages of specious reasoning focused on proving what cannot be proved appalled me, the mere unanswered question of this author caused me pause. He writes "And if an object known only to a single mind were not cognized by that mind, would it then exist?"
We have all heard this question asked in various forms from the simplistic analogy of a tree falling to philosophical treatises touching all aspects of existence. The phrasing of this question is by far the most open, the most thought provoking. It is the question asked not of one who has accepted the material universe for all there life and is now breaking with the tradition but of one that has no pre-disposition.
Even I, a stringent believer in an objective universe, a man who dismissed Descartes and Kant as kowtowing to the Church, was intrigued by the question.
Why was this phrasing so powerful? The first few words are the key: "...an object known only to a single mind..." This is not pitted against the collective consciousness of millions, only of one. So, I'll expand this question. If you forget a dream does it have any presence? Do the visions of a schizophrenic have any reality to them? Was that brief glimpse out of the corner of your eye anything that can be measured, accounted for? When a thought is not expressed to others, what is it? It can leave a memory, yet it is perceived only by the mind. If it is forgotten, what happens then? Does it cease to exist? Is it moved to another area of the consciousness?
The ubiquitous bacteria of our world did exist before we knew of them, but at the same time, we did see their effects we simply misinterpreted them. We knew that people were dying of cholera, we just didn't know why. The structure of an atom was not known to us for most of our history, but we had evidence of it. Not all alchemical experiments were failures, just the most desired ones. The did end up creating gold paint, just not gold. By the way, you can turn lead into gold, it's just cost prohibitive and dangerous.
Separating the perceivable into those which are congnized by a single mind and those that are cognized by many as I have above may be a point of contention, but that is why Patanjali's question struck me as it did. The existence of an objective universe and the objectiveness of cognition should be separated at least for purposes of examination. If we can later blur the line between the two, then we can consider the objectiveness of the universe in a better light.
Where Western philosophers combine the knower of the thought with the thought and with the act of knowing and calling the combination of the three the self, there seems to be a significant division in Eastern thought. I, of course, need to learn more. One always need to learn more.
Strange that I've studied so little in this area. There are however some things that I find a little outside the realm of my world. Just as I doubt the divine in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition, I doubt the idea of superhuman acts in any world view. I do not believe any human can walk on water regardless of their level of consciousness.
The unrelenting question I am left with though regards a separation. Can the consciousness separate from the physical body? Are the two distinct? Is the great sum of all thought and knowledge contained in the electric impulses of a million neurons? This seems to be the pith of the matter. If the consciousness is somehow separate from the physical body, then nearly anything is possible. There would be then at least two worlds one objective and one subjective. The consciousness could be eternal and the great rules that govern the physical universe would be undermined. Whether or not someone could reach this state is of secondary concern. The very notion that such a state exists is worthy of consideration.
It seems to me that many philosophies have taken this separation for granted. I, unfortunately, have never found popular opinion as an argument of any worth. If the two can be separated, what keeps them intertwined?
I thank Patanjali for reminding me that nothing is known for certain. All theories must be tested and re-tested. Any world view that becomes dogmatic ceases to be relevant. Oops, that almost sounded dogmatic. Back to my books.
No comments:
Post a Comment