Since antiquity philosophers spoke of the 'trichotomy' of human being; the mind, body and soul. From the onset of my philosophy I teach that existence is a matter of comprehension, all that exists to the human mind is ideas. As such the manifestation of the body itself is merely an idea, formalised by the involuntary action surmised in the previous article. In truth the manifestation of the body is a much deeper phenomenon, for the fragmentation of absolute oneness known as singularity is not apparent, why must we be aware of forms and not solely inclined towards conception of singularity itself? I seek to answer this question through an investigation of the tripartite structure, using an 'ocean analogy' starting from the first singularity to the chaotic external projection of the world of forms.
The Deep Ocean, 'Soul'
The 'Will' is the first ontology, the fundamental and necessary truth allowing for self-existence. Descartes had once stated: 'I think therefore I am'. In truth it is more accurate to say 'I am, therefore I think' since this embodies the idea of 'ontology' itself; the very possibility of categorising the self as an 'I' is an embodiment of thought structure. The conceiving exists to conceive, to constantly strive towards itself. The 'Will' is defined as cognition of the self, it is the first truth striving towards the absolute truth which is God. The will explains the need for form, to strive towards utmost singularity and thus achieve oneness of being to attain the self, generalisation is necessary from the smallest and most petty spectacles of nature to the grandest structure of cosmos, exemplified high and again to approach singularity.
The absolute oneness of being, the initial singularity of self-existence is known as the Soul. Not merely the totality of thought, perception and conception, but the very primordial substance of our existence ordained by God on High. The very fundamental and innate conceptions of the mind drawing oneself to goodness , and towards the total surrender to God known as 'enlightenment' are contained in this highest singularity.
Just as the deep ocean lies dark and enigmatic; the unknown beyond the known - yet the water closest to the Earth, so does the soul subsist as the highest state of existence possible for man to inhabit though he chooses not to through willful ignorance and attachment to form. To ordinary humans, and in ordinary life, this layer remains forgotten and inaccessible thought it remains true that divine insight is attained from the inmost layer of being.
At this point in time it is helpful to consider the soul as merely the totality of being, and highest state and it is important to realise that one is not simply in occupation of this state but must come to its absolute awareness through dissolution of the 'ego'. My work will open itself to further understanding and discourse in future essays on the state of human awareness, and God Exalted himself.
Ocean Currents, 'Mind'
The ocean currents form pathway channels for the flow of water dictated by the laws of nature. Our conscious thoughts flow by direction of the will and influence of external reality. In this sense the higher will manifests as freedom of action, allowing oneself cognition dependent upon his external view of reality and inner view of the self. Cognition continuously acts to strive towards the self, and is either epitomised by good action - seeking the higher state via introspection: generalisation and abstraction. Or it can be destructively influenced by carnal attachment to form; evil degrading ones state of existence.
Ocean Waves 'Body'
Waves come and go, as such sensory perception leaves ripples of basic material thought in the mind, continuously warping its cognition of reality. One is either subject to the tidal forces or transcends them by becoming aware of material perception itself in a meta-state, viewing external reality as an illusory projection necessitated by the striving of the will to approach singularity from form.
Friday, 13 February 2015
On the Nature of the Self and Thought
From the philosophical discourse we have embarked upon in metaphysics in particular, it makes sense to speak of the singularity of the mind as the totality of being which we identify ourselves with. But this speaks nothing of the idea of thought and will, of the fundamental ability to perceive and conceive as aspects of cognition rather than spectacles of structure.
What is required is some construction to elaborate on some relationship between various structures, an operation between them. The present discussion is to hopefully illuminate the latter construction which may not seem self evident or even natural perhaps. This may very well be the case, but consistency of reasoning is paramount and sufficient, the overarching idea of my philosophy is not to present the final condition of human thought and the ubiquitous system which fully defines and explains all things. I simply seek a perception of reality, as in this life at least it seems that conception of absolute truth is all but above ourselves. When searching for a definition of our operation we must question whether it should occur between form, singularity, or both. As form represents individual representation of the true ideal it is impossible to construct a singularity from this, or to come to any other understand other than that which is immediately present. Singularity on the other hand does provide a path towards greater understanding, we can utilise its sum totality but is questionable as to what effect this would have on a structure already embodying its own sum totality. As such we conclude that our operation must include singularity and form to provide a meaningful path towards self realisation.
We define a singularity expansion about a form. Intuitively this is a process of constructing a singularity from a given form; we can centre our expansion about a particular form and take a summation indexed by the singularity itself cycling through each form to produce infinite generalisation. An insight gleaned is that any totality could index the expansion, it need not necessarily be the initial singularity - provided that the indexing singularity is of a greater state of existence than the subject singularity*. It is possible to use another singularity to index our expansion, setting this to be the 'mind' we come to our definition of our operator, 'cognition'.
Thought is the acquaintance of the mental spirit with a particular idea. The category of thought is comprised of the voluntary and involuntary; the involuntary consists of an idea stemming from a material stimulus. The involuntary mechanism can be described in some detail by science, a mathematical exposition would be more useful philosophically, and it is here that we can utilise modelling the mind/body complex in this scenario by a logical system. The voluntary mechanism of thought is much more difficult to describe but seems to revolve around an idea of 'will'.
Our conception of the world (external reality) follows by cognition about a particular idea and situation. That is the totality of external awareness is centered around a particular physical frame, awareness is restricted but the singularity expansion remains possible as with each physical frame of awareness an idea is associated. Ideas exist as singularities, the intrinsic nature of infinity allows for complete generalisation onto reality from any given moment. The mathematical detail of this argument is to to simply observe external reality as a 3-dimensional space adding further sets to account for any other perceived variations such as colour, sounds, etc. This system accounts for the involuntary stimulus and primitively associates thought by necessity.
*In my previous post we construct a transfinite sequence of singularities through generalisation. This statement deals with the problematic nature of using something of a lower state to index a higher state, which may seem contradictory to the very nature of generalisation via the mind. The difference is that the mind is innately equipped with a power to 'apparently generalise' any phenomenon (the innate characteristic is what I would characterise as an ontological truth). I.e. a lower cardinality cannot be used to index a set of higher cardinality, but the mind is unrestricted by comprehension - we can construct any cardinality. Of course at some point it may be that we are incorrect in assuming that our generalisations are meaningful, and this is where the proof picks up in the previous article.
What is required is some construction to elaborate on some relationship between various structures, an operation between them. The present discussion is to hopefully illuminate the latter construction which may not seem self evident or even natural perhaps. This may very well be the case, but consistency of reasoning is paramount and sufficient, the overarching idea of my philosophy is not to present the final condition of human thought and the ubiquitous system which fully defines and explains all things. I simply seek a perception of reality, as in this life at least it seems that conception of absolute truth is all but above ourselves. When searching for a definition of our operation we must question whether it should occur between form, singularity, or both. As form represents individual representation of the true ideal it is impossible to construct a singularity from this, or to come to any other understand other than that which is immediately present. Singularity on the other hand does provide a path towards greater understanding, we can utilise its sum totality but is questionable as to what effect this would have on a structure already embodying its own sum totality. As such we conclude that our operation must include singularity and form to provide a meaningful path towards self realisation.
We define a singularity expansion about a form. Intuitively this is a process of constructing a singularity from a given form; we can centre our expansion about a particular form and take a summation indexed by the singularity itself cycling through each form to produce infinite generalisation. An insight gleaned is that any totality could index the expansion, it need not necessarily be the initial singularity - provided that the indexing singularity is of a greater state of existence than the subject singularity*. It is possible to use another singularity to index our expansion, setting this to be the 'mind' we come to our definition of our operator, 'cognition'.
Thought is the acquaintance of the mental spirit with a particular idea. The category of thought is comprised of the voluntary and involuntary; the involuntary consists of an idea stemming from a material stimulus. The involuntary mechanism can be described in some detail by science, a mathematical exposition would be more useful philosophically, and it is here that we can utilise modelling the mind/body complex in this scenario by a logical system. The voluntary mechanism of thought is much more difficult to describe but seems to revolve around an idea of 'will'.
Our conception of the world (external reality) follows by cognition about a particular idea and situation. That is the totality of external awareness is centered around a particular physical frame, awareness is restricted but the singularity expansion remains possible as with each physical frame of awareness an idea is associated. Ideas exist as singularities, the intrinsic nature of infinity allows for complete generalisation onto reality from any given moment. The mathematical detail of this argument is to to simply observe external reality as a 3-dimensional space adding further sets to account for any other perceived variations such as colour, sounds, etc. This system accounts for the involuntary stimulus and primitively associates thought by necessity.
*In my previous post we construct a transfinite sequence of singularities through generalisation. This statement deals with the problematic nature of using something of a lower state to index a higher state, which may seem contradictory to the very nature of generalisation via the mind. The difference is that the mind is innately equipped with a power to 'apparently generalise' any phenomenon (the innate characteristic is what I would characterise as an ontological truth). I.e. a lower cardinality cannot be used to index a set of higher cardinality, but the mind is unrestricted by comprehension - we can construct any cardinality. Of course at some point it may be that we are incorrect in assuming that our generalisations are meaningful, and this is where the proof picks up in the previous article.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)