.
.
.
.
.
Once we accept that everything is relative and we include everything we know, then "everything we know" is relative to us. In that sense it is also subjective. But since we also recognize that there are some things -- objective things -- that we don't know, i.e., which are not related to us in a subjective sense, then there must be a Being who knows the things we do not in order for everything objective to be relative in a subjective sense. To say that there must be such a Being in the context in which we are saying it, merely states that, in order to be consistent, we must postulate such a Being. The ultimate decision as to whether or not such a Being exists cannot be proven by logic, as pointed out in the first chapter, since its ability to prove anything depends on the acceptance or rejection of an external reality that has one non-contradictory Nature.
These areas are particularly important to note here because we have been discussing things primarily in relative terms using the term relative and its extension relevant to help us understand objectivity vs subjectivity in terms of knowledge, i.e., in relation to ourselves. Another aspect of the problem can be expressed as an analogous problem of the Absolute vs the Relative whose solution is only complicated by the need to find a substitute for the terms relative and relevant that served as intermediaries.
God, or the Being with all knowledge, or the External Reality, all represent Absolutes and yet all of them, if they are to be known, must also be Relative. To talk about the relativity of an absolute, or about the absolute quality of relative relations, or about Relative Absolutes seems at first to be a contradiction in terms. But if we think about what we mean by these terms, -- if we think about how we use these terms -- the problem is easily resolved. From the foregoing discussions, an absolute thing would be anything that existed external to the mind of any man and hence a thing that is known fully only to God an omniscient Being. An absolute value then would be a value that an existing entity has, by the nature of its existence, though the knowledge of that absolute value is dependent on that aspect of its nature through which it can be known, that is, through which it can be relative to man in terms of knowledge.
Now, since our view of absolutes (i.e., of Objective Reality, of Metaphysical Reality, of an Omniscient Being, of Nature, etc.) is necessarily limited, we can expect to find the limits of our knowledge to be related to the extent of our evaluation of our experiences. Furthermore, since we would not consider any two human beings to have identical knowledge, their limits of knowledge of an Absolute, particularly of God, would be different. This does not imply that there are many gods, for example, but simply, that many people, having different views of the same God can all state a belief in the "true" God which differs from the "true" God that someone else holds. The difference is one of interpretation of God's Nature and their synbolism of God, just as differing views of Reality are only different interpretations of the same Reality. Though our purpose as "psychologists" is not to decide on whose concept of the Reality of God is correct, we must agree, to some degree at least, on a concept of Reality. But even in the case of God, considered as Reality, we can establish a mutually acceptable definition in terms of values which will be limited but applicable to everyone's concept of God.
Very simply, we can define anyone's highest value as his symbolization of God. With God considered as the symbolization of the highest value both objectively and subjectively, as well as Absolutely and Relatively, we can apply the notion of God psychologically to those who believe in one God with no problems; to those who believe in many Gods by considering the single highest values taken together (collectively); and to those who call themselves atheists, by considering a neutral, or negative value, or by substituting their highest value, e.g., Money as an equivalent of a believer's symbolization of God.
The only loose ends left in this particular discussion is the definition of an Absolute in relative terms. So far we have simply noted that an Absolute -- to be known -- must be Relative. If it, an absolute, cannot be known, any definition of an absolute is absurd and we must also discard the term relative which derives much of its definition in contrast to our notion of an absolute. But what can we add to the definition of the term absolute to distinguish it from the term "objective"? That term itself wasn't adequately defined. We simply distinguished between the subjective and objective by attributing to the objective a nature by which it can be known irrespective of the other qualities it might possess. To be consistent we must also characterize an absolute by the quality of knowability to retain the relationship of Objective Reality and Absolute Reality but we must add another characteristic or quality to differentiate them. An absolute, besides having the quality of being known, i.e., related to man as knowledge, must also have the quality of being related to all existing entities, i.e., to all absolutes. We therefore can talk objectively about the objective existence of an hallucination though an hallucination has no absolute existence because it is related only to the subject conceiving it, and perhaps to his body, but it cannot be related to other existing entities as the relationsip of the body of the conceiver; in which case, it is impossible to consider the relationship of the hallucination in place of the relationsip of the body with that other existing entity.
.
.
.
Do you agree, or disagree?
Make a comment, or ask a question via e-mail
Hit the 'back button to return to where you were.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Besides that the thought considered as energy can also be considered as "material" in the usual sense through the equation e=mc2. Although it might be interesting philosophically to consider "thought energy" as being included in this equation (e=mc2), this physical equation cannot account for the direction of "thought energy", or of thoughts. Consider the example of a point source expending all its energy. It is clear that the energy can be expended in any direction. The direction in which it expends this energy can therefore not be included in the equation (e=mc2) in this particular case. However, we can construct a point source of energy in such a way that we can direct that energy. We would therefore be forced to consider something of a different nature than the physical unless we were willing to accept the impossibility of directing our thoughts in such a way that we can direct energy to suit our purposes. Of course, directing energy from a point source, some of the energy might be "lost" in the sense that we are unable to direct the energy with 100% efficiency, but all the energy is accounted for in the equation e=mc2. The directing influence we can exert on an energy source to suit our purposes cannot be the result of "thought energy" because no energy is added to the system in excess of that accounted for in the equation both for the cases of random and directed energy of a point source.
.
.
.
Do you agree, or disagree?
Make a comment, or ask a question via e-mail
Hit the 'back' button to return to where you were.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
It should be noted that even if we were unable to appreciate how body can act upon spirit we could not even consider the question how? it occurs without first assuming that it does occur. The very fact that the question is raised, and has been raised many times, indicates that there is evidence that body can act upon spirit. It is also clear that thoughts cannot be considered physical, yet thoughts affect the body (the essence of "psycho-somatics"). It is absurd to ask the question how? something happens if it does not happen. It is therefore equally absurd to conclude that the inability to answer the question should lead us to doubt that there is an answer, or that there is no basis for the question. For example: No one has yet answered the question: "How is cancer caused?". No one doubts that cancer is caused. Many not only believe there is an answer, but are actively seeking to find it. How else could it be found?
.
.
.
.
Do you agree or disagree?
Make a comment, or ask a question via
e-mail
Hit the 'back' key to return to where you were.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Indicated here is that part of the confusion of our understanding of subjectivity and objectivity is a result of the fact that both of these terms are used at times in a static sense, and at other times in a dynamic sense. As was pointed out in the first chapter, all words not only can, but also should, and must, be used in both senses. The first consideration and definition of subjectivity and objectivity was made on a dynamic basis -- in terms of the direction of a causal relationship. The considerations here, in terms of the inside and outside worlds, are made emphasizing subjectivity and objectivity in a static sense. The inside world is the subjective world and is represented by the static aspect of the term "subjective": the outside world is the objective world and is represented by the static aspect of the term "objective". It is the relationship between the subjective and objective worlds that we are considering, and as soon as we consider the relationship rather than the things related, we are making dynamic considerations rather than static ones. The relationship (or the dynamic aspects) between the subjective and objective (or the entities related, or the static aspects) derives its name from the static aspect upon which we wish to concentrate so that it (the relationship's name) is dependent upon whether we wish to emphasize the effects on the subjective world (consciousness) or on the objective world (body).
It is interesting to note that the terms "relationships" and "entities related" are related to the terms "dynamic" and "static" respectively. It is even more interesting to note that the terms "dynamic" and "static" are also related to the terms "subjective" and "objective" respectively. For example: Anything considered in a static sense is considered in an objective sense. The particularly interesting case is the consideration of the internal or subjective phenomena in a static or objective sense; i.e., objectively considering subjectivity, or making subjective considerations irrespective of the dynamics of the particular subjective world being considered. Something considered in a dynamic sense can be either subjective or objective depending upon whether the dynamics (the relationship) is being considered to occur in the internal or external world. Subjectivity and objectivity in these cases are considered in their static sense. If on the other hand we wish to consider something dynamic (or static) in a dynamic sense of subjectivity and objectivity, we must return to the relationship between the subjective and objective world, and, therefore, the something dynamic must be able to effect both the internal and external world. The most interesting thing to note is that in considering anything at all, we are intrinsically including the dynamic aspects of the thinking process as well as a dynamic aspect of the entity being considered, i.e., the relationship established whereby knowledge of the entity is, or was, derived.
A great deal of time, thought, and ink, can be expended on the relationships and inter-relationships I have merely indicated here. There are many intrigueing relationships which become even more intrigueing if they are further considered in their relationships and inter-relationships to those already indicated. For the philosopher, or anyone who likes to play with relationships, there are listed below several (respective) relationships which should exercise the imagination. Consider the relationship between the terms, and between that which is represented by the terms:
.
.
.
Do you agree or disagree?
Make a comment, or ask a question via e-mail
Hit the 'back' button to return to where you were.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Besides helping to demonstrate the necessity for "simultaneity" of subjective-objective phenomena by indicating the relationship to be one between body and spirit, the analogy discussed above should also be helpful in considering the "spirit" or "things that are spiritual". Though the analogy seems to break down at the point at which we had to imagine that images could be represented within the substance of the mirror, and then be recalled some time later, its value is not destroyed. The fact that we can find no such mirror should not be taken too seriously. It would be rather simple theoretically to construct a "mirror"with the necessary accessories -- e.g., video tape, television screen, a coded set of "laws" to follow in "recalling", or "imagining" some image or composite of images, etc. -- so that we needn't discard the analogy, but merely use it as a simplification of, or a stepping stone to, a more elaborate analogy. But regardless of how complex a system we could develop in this manner, the mirror, or the system, would never be aware of the image. In fact the image that exists in the mirror is nothing more than a dynamic representation of the object; i.e., a relationship of absorption and re-emision of light waves, or the simple reflection of particles or "photons". It is the mind of a thinking subject, e.g., a man, that is aware of the image -- not the mirror. It is the mind of a thinking subject that is aware of the reflection of light -- not the mirror. The mind therefore must be of a different nature than the physical, - or we must accept that the mirror is aware of its images -- and may actually be amused or disturbed by our antics in front of it. It is this necessity to consider something of a different nature than the physical which leads us to the necessity for considering spirit since an adequate definition of spirit for our present purpose is: "some entity that is non-physical in nature". It should be noted that everything that has been presented so far concerning "spirit" has been presented in such a way as to maintain consistency with this crude definition of spirit, or spiritual "things", or entities.
.
.
.
Do you agree or disagree?
Make a comment, or ask a question via e-mail
Hit the 'back button to return to where you were.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
What is most important from a psychological point of view is that these two aspects of man, -- body and spirit -- being inseparable, may become confused. We have already reviewed somewhat the result of such confusion. A lengthy discussion at this point would only be very redundant, so that the most useful conclusion might simply be the presentation of questions. Consider:
If man had no portion which is spiritual, in the sense at least that we have shown thoughts to be, how would he differ from an animal or a tree?
If there is no difference, why should it matter if I boil one or two men in oil?
If man is only material, why can't I build a house using men instead of bricks?
If man is the same as an animal, why can't I hunt men?
If it is just a difference in the extent of a man's and animal's ability "to think:, why can't I shoot someone less inteligent than I am?
Why doesn't someone more intelligent shoot me?
Indeed! It is a frightening world if we reject this dual, or "triune", nature of man, or if we confuse it.
But who says we are no different than animals anyway?
Why not test the sincerity of such persons' beliefs by treating them like animals?
Why not put them in cages?
Why should they refuse to accept authority, any authority, -- such as mine?
Why do slaves rebel?
Consider the following four statements:
1. There are many who refuse to accept the reality of their nature.
2. There are also many neorotics.
3. There are also many people in mental institutions, or many with mental problems.
4. It appears that the numbers in these classes are increasing.
Are these statements connected?
Can they be causally related?
Does "education" over-emphasize "intellectual" development?
Has the number of "educated" people increased?
Were they taught in a manner to allow even the recognition of their nature?
Was an understanding of their nature confused?
Does society over-emphasize material things?
Has the number of people trying to keep up with the Jones'increased?
Do those who accept "religious" beliefs, such as a concept of "soul" do so because they understand, at least partially, its meaning?
Or do people accept because they are bullied into it, or merely because they want to be accepted themselves?
If they accept, do they try to eliminate confusion, or do they accept confusion as part of "religion"?
Is Faith simply an excuse for ignorance?
Is Belief the acceptance of a confused state?
.
.
.
Do you agree, or disagree?
Make a comment, or ask a question via e-mail
Hit the 'back' button to return to where you were.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Do you agree, or disagree?
Make a comment, or ask a question via e-mail
Hit the 'back' button to return to where you were.
.
.
.
.