The world was observed by man as a volume filled with experience. All his experience was set in space, a 3D space. It was in fact these experience that made sure a 3D spatial theory evolved from the 2D possibility.
In this volume, things were stretched in 3 dimensions. From this, man exctracted the 2-dimensional plane. This became the flat surface. And from this came the notion of the line: the 1-dimensional edges of the plane. Of course, this was only an abstract idea, since such a line had never, and in fact could have never, been seen. The eye was incapable of seeing the line and even thinking about it. But as an abstract idea, it was there. It was the edges of the plane. And from this abstract notion came the second abstract idea: the point. The point was where two lines met, or crossed over one another. Since the line had no dimension but stretched, and the point was not stretched, thus the point had no dimension.
And from this point came the idea of a separate identity from all other points or identities upon that line. Here, mathematics became a slave of its own progress, its own abstractions, its own ideas - just as language had become a slave of its own progress, its own abstractions, its own ideas and semantics and grammar and syntax.
Whereas there is no evidence in the world of experience of a line or a point, then such abstractions were arbitrary and therefore, not necessarily applicable to the real world.
So, to say we are at a point in the real world or such-and-such is bound by a line is to make a semantical mistake.
For the world is either perceived as volume or plane. In fact which one it is can be debated and we shall debate it. But for now, let us discuss the more abstract ideas of maths.
If the world is either volume or plane, then we should use models that are described in those terms. Indeed, there is no such thing as a line. A line is only the edges of a plane. But there is no need for the abstract line. A plane is a plane. It is not bound by lines at all. All it is is a finite plane.
For example this: O.
In reality, we do not see the binding line. We just see the white bits and where the white bits end, we call a line. In fact, all that happens is that the plane ends. A plane is not defined by lines at all, but defined by volume. And volume is defined by perception and experience which we have set is the basis of our method towards comprehension and understanding.
So, we have no reason to use the idea of the line except in the same way we use "border", which is nothing but an arbitrary idea. For do borders really exist to divide nations? Or are they simply made-up to show this division?
Indeed, the different planes exist, but are not defined from lines at all. Indeed, lines are defined by them. It is from knowing the semantics of "plane" and "edge" that we reach the idea of "line".
But how can we reach the idea of "plane" from "line"? To say that a plane is an area bound by lines is to say that a plane is a plane bound by lines. So you then include the word "plane" in it which is wrong, for then you will have a regress of definitions.
But to say that a line is the "boundries of a plane" is quite alright. One may object that a line is the same as a boundry. If that is so, then we simply say that "lines are what distinguish planes from each other." By this definition, we have kept the plane as our base unit and extracted the idea of the line from it.
The next part we will try to discuss is the numbers. Numbers came about from "finiteness".
So, a plane that was distinguished from another became the basis for a different identity. Thus, each identity became a singularity and each singularity became known as 1. And therefore, all other numbers were extracted from this notion.
0 or zero was a later concept and meant "the absence of 1". But indeed, most primitive civilisations did not regard 0 and in fact it was developed later as a sign of nothingness.
And when they did develop it, they developed it for things such as commerce, astronomy, geometry and pure algebra. In the latter two disciplines, 0 can be considered since they are abstract disciplines, dealing with the world of numbers. This was a world of abstraction where 1 meant something without referring to anything. 0 too.
In the real world, especially in trade and commerce, 0 was used as the absence of value.
Yet, during this process of advance, the nature of how maths was born was forgotten and men delved deeper into the abstract realms of this mystical world - so mystical that Pythagoras created a cult from it!
Now, had they actually cared more for its origins than its arbitrary development, they would have noticed that the number was a multiple of 1 and that 1 was the singularity perceived by the identifying mind of the human awareness.
But this 1 was known via an experience, such as the vision of an animal in a herd, a woman's voice in a crowd of men, an aromatic taste amongst the many tastes of a perfect dish.
Therefore, this was not just 1 but 1x.
And it was by not understanding the notion of 'x' completely that the algebraic functions were doomed as well as was the mathematical proceedings of the later centuries after the development of algebra.
For 'x' was the quality, the essence, the experience that was identified as 1 identity. Indeed, it was when the quantifier and the quality were divorced that mathematics sank into an ocean of absurdity and self-refuting quagmire.
Such self-refutations can be seen when mathematic is used to describe the real world, yet certain mathematical notions make little sense when applied to the real world - Zeno's paradox of motion and the Infinite past paradox are all part of this mathematical fiasco that had its origins in the separation of quantifier and quality.
So, we are yet to discuss what is a quantifier, but let us first discuss the quality, for the quality came first and the quantifier was nothing but the work of the human mind that singled out that quality amongst a collection of qualities and thus made it a separate entity - and understood from the identification, this separation, the idea of "1".
So, what is the quality? The 'x'? It is of course the experience.
But, what is it that we should know of it?
We should remember that all experiences are set in a partcular background, for example a sound comes from "somewhere", the touch is felt "somewhere", that taste is "somewhere" on the tongue, and so on. Therefore, "place" is required for each experience.
Therefore, 'x' is an experience set in place. Can an experience exist without space? This question is discussed in another work of ours and thus leave much of it out of this sketch.
But it should be known that a quality cannot exist without space (at least for us) and space cannot exist without quality (again, at least for us). Indeed, one is tempted to say that an experience is a quality plus space. That there is no such thing as simply space or quality and that they are one. However, a partcular space may have the quality of, say, black at one time and white at another. Or any other colour. This means that the same space can be seen as another colour. But, again, we know it must be seen as some type of colour.
But what if it is not?
Then it would be like air or glass - we see through it, up to the next visible thing. Therefore, space must exist for visible things to live with it. This space, some have reminded us, is relative and not absolute. We can easily accept this by saying that space is the product of the mind - indeed it is one of things it is aware of - but to be aware of space is to be aware of the qualities - and thus we should be able to see "black" which is the absence of light. But then, if black is a quality, then we have indeed reached a point that we cannot separate space and quality.
But let us return to knowing what this quality is. It is of course, finite. That is, it has been identified by us and therefore separated from the background. Therefore, it is finite and bound.
Also, it is separated from a background. That is, it's non-existence would be the non-existence of a finite entity from a background that exists no matter what. This is the experience we get from the real world and therefore, we should understand that the space would exist no matter what, if that particular experience suddenly became non-existent.
This can be explained in the following way:
If there was a tree blocking the path, you would not see the path - but if you got rid of the tree, you would see the cloudy sky. If you got rid of the cloud, you would then see the blue sky. All this is because there is a space out there and the quality in which we perceive this space depends on the light and energy and so on. Thus, the space does exist, but it is inevitable for it not to be perceived as some sort of quality.
So, the fact that space does exist at least as something within the range of our awareness has been proven in our other work.
But, if we have all experiences in the background of time, even if we don't have any experiences, we will still know that the capacity is there - that it is possible - therefore, there does remain a "potential" background for the experiences to occur within. This potential background shows actuality only in pieces and parts, here and there, with finite experiences which occupy finite areas of space with a particular quality.
This awareness has no end to what it can perceive, but say sight does have a finiteness about it. You cannot see behind you, for example. But the potentiality exists, therefore the potential background does exist. This we cannot deny, since the existence of an actuality proves the existence of the potentiality.
Therefore, we can safely conclude that space is this potentiality and the experience is the actuality within this area.
Now - what is 'x'?
Of course, an experience. Therefore, it is an actuality. So, for example an apple is 1x. If the apple did not exist, it would be 0x. But it would not mean absence of all value. It just means an absence of an actuality. What remains is the potentiality.
So, when we say 0x, all we are saying is that 'x' has not become actualised in this potentiality. But it does not negate the fact that its potential does exist.
Therefore, 0 must apply to the 'x' and without the 'x', it may be mistakenly thought that 'nothing' exists, meaning nothingness, or 'Neesti' in the Persian language.
After all, the potential of 'x' existing still remains.
Additionally, all experiences are known to us in a finite space. This means that our range of sense and perception is finite. Therefore, the potential background is also finite. The only reason we guess it might be infinite is because we "assume" that space goes on forever. This is an assumption with no basis. No basis in empiricism and no basis in rationalism. The concept of an infinite space is one so foreign to the human experience that its concoction is a strange event indeed. How could we come up with such an incredible concept? What infinity had we seen at all? None! So, what did we do to reach infinity?
Simple. We just said that our range of perception was finite. Therefore, we called this finite range a singularity since we distinguished it from another perceived range. Therefore, we called the finite range 'x' and we saw that it was 1x. We then added the finite ranges on and on endlessly.
1x + 1x + 1x +...
But why?! Why 'endlessly'?!! What was the reason? Had we any intuition that space went on forever?!!!!
Yet, all we could perceive were finite entities, all in volumes of perception (perception range).
So - there was no infinity in the world of experience at all. So - how did the infinity come to be in the mathematical realm??? This we shall see.
To get any number, one must identify a singularity from the background. This is 1x.
Then, if there was another 1x which was different in some respect from the previous, we would say there are (1+1)x or 2x. This is how we count.
But say, someone said: count but never stop.
That is (1+1+1+...)x.
Of course, like this, we will never get 'infinity'. Because however high we go, we are still in the realm of the finite entities. Infinity is simply the potentiality of these finite entities in our mind. That is, in our mind, we can accept the existence of ANY number of 'x's. Therefore, we think that this means that there can be infinite 'x's. This belief is wrong.
Infinite is not a magnitude. It is endlessness. And our mind CANNOT accept an endless chain of things. That is because our mind's can accept only a finite number in a finite range.
However, we would never be able to count up to this so-called infinity. But could this infinity exist at once, regardless of whether we could count it?
Well, yes. But we have no reason to believe it does. Therefore, why should we say it does? All evidence points that it does not, so should we get bogged down into the debate of infinite or not?
But then again, let us do bogged down in this debate - for it is a debate for human understanding, which is valued above all amongst humans.
What is true is that infinity can exist in one go.
But what is infinity 'x's? Surely that means that the entire potential has been taken up - that is not true. For something may be infinite in one dimension only, and thus finite in other dimensions. Such as the following:
__________________________________
-------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
___________________________________
The ___ lines show the infinite potential backgound which is infinite in all dimensions.
The ---- lines show the infinite actual 'x' which is infinite in one dimension but finite in the other. That is, it has infinite length but a finite width.
That is, when some infinities seem 'bigger' than others, it is only the fact that the 'bigger' ones are only infinite in more than just one aspect.
There are infinite aspects to be infinite in - therefore, you can have infinite types of infinite!
But, here's the point we are trying to make - how many basic infinite categories can you have?
Three.
The one with the beginning.
The one with the end.
The one with neither end nor beginning.
That is:
1,2,3,...
...,3,2,1
...-1,0,1,...
The third type needs explanation at a later time, since it also requires us to have a look at zero and the negative numbers and so now we will deal with the first two infinite categories only.
The first type is saying that the infinite line begins from 1 and continues counting forever.
Of course, we have already said that this is not infinite because we will never reach forever. Since it has no end, then we can only say that the numbers get bigger - and never reach an end. SINCE THERE ARE INFINITE 'FINITE' NUMBERS, WE WILL ALWAYS BE IN A FINITE NUMBER!
"There is only one infinite and that is the infinite number of finite numbers."
However, the second type is strange:
...3,2,1
This implies that we do not begin, but we do end.
Of course, we believe this is paradoxical. How can something end at all if it has not begun?
To say something has ended is to say that the numbers were being counted one by one towards a final number - a final point.
But to say that these numbers were being counted is to say that they had a beginning.
Because to count, you count one number FIRST and then another number SECOND. This is what gives it SUCCESSION. An example would be Time.
So, to state succession is to imply first and second and to imply this is to imply beginning and direction. That is, the numbers are counted FROM a point in a particular DIRECTION from that point.
Some may object that to imply a direction from an arbitrary point is enough to set an infinite past into motion. But this is wrong. Because in that case, motion would start from that arbitrary point and not from before it, whereas we know that points before that arbitrary point also moved in that direction.
And to simply set a direction without saying from which point this direction moves is also wrong. After all, a vector is a translation from one point to another point and in that direction. And to say that there is a direction is not enough. Very well, there is a direction, but where is the cursor that indicates our position in the timeline, so we can move in that direction?
It is not anywhere, because there is no beginning.
And here is the basic fallacy in the reasoning of those believers in an infinite past.
The idicator/cursor can be nowhere since to imply it is anywhere at any time is to say it is not someplace else. And to say it is not someplace else is because that other place comes after or before that point in which it is.
Therefore, there must be a reason that it is there and not another place.
The reason can only be that resting on that point was the only possible outcome. That is, that there was still time left for it to reach a point further down - or that some time had passed from the point further back.
If that is the only reason, then it is the number of time-points that pass that separate the points. Therefore, if there is only 3 points between them, it will take 3 units to reach the final point.
If there is 100 points, then 100 units stand in between and 100 units must pass to reach that final point.
Therefore, we can say that the differences of points is due to their PRIORITY and since PRIORITY does exist in Time, then we can safely say that the one that is further up in the timeline is reached earlier because there is LESS time to reach it then there is to reach the point that comes after.
Therefore, to say there is less of something for A then there is for B is to say that that particular something is finite but expanding. Also, to say there is less of something for A compared to B is to say that if you add all the components of A and that of B, you will find that B has extra components.
Now, for an infinity "more" and "less" have no meaning.
Some have used Cantor's proof of different infinities as proof for some infinities being larger than others.
Example would be:
1,3,5,7,9,...
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,...
Now, there is obviously more numbers in the second - but is there?
Since all numbers are multiples of one:
1+1+1+1+1+1+...
1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+...
So, if all the 1s add up forever, will there ever be a difference?
Now, what if we say there are more elements in the second 'set'?
Well, how many elements are there in the first set?
1,3,5,7,9,...
1,2,3,4,5,...
And
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,...
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,...
But as you see, the elements of both sets are equal in number.
But as for Cantor's proof that between two infinities, one may include all the others, but not include at least one of the other sets.
They use this proof to show that one infinite can have an element that another infinite does not have, even though all other elements are included.
So, for example:
1,2,3,4,5,...
0,1,2,3,4,5,...
Well - our response is that the number of elements will still be infinite for both and since we can never stop this progression (for to do so is to make it finite) then the second can never be established as larger.
Now - if we were to pair each with the one that looks the same: 1,1 and 2,2 and not 1,2:
1,2,3,4,5,...
0,1,2,3,4,5,...
But this should not be accepted, since to say how it is to pair them means you can say it should pair in a way that is internally and analytically impossible. For example, the proof of Cantor's theorem about the set of non-selfish numbers.
But that is impossible. For we are telling to the set to be paired with something and saying that the pair should not be in and therefore should be in it.
This is a logical paradox - a fallacy - I don't quite understand how he got away with it.
To say that a set should include numbers and be paired off with another set and that set should not be in it and therefore be in it is a paradox of the worst kind.
So, we can conclude that no infinite is greater than the other in "number of elements" (cardinality) :
1,2,3,4,5,6,...
0,1,2,3,4,5,...
As you see, both have '5' numbers before the infinity sign.
Also, we can conclude that in an infinity which begins one unit sooner and has at least an one extra different subset, then we can believe that all other subsets match but this one. Does this mean that this is different?
Yes - but not in a profound way. Both are still infinity and not one is greater. If they are indeed infinites, then they cannot be added to.
So 1,2,3,4,5,... cannot have anything added on to them. But that means they cannot have anything added on to them horizontally. That is, you cannot have more numbers than infinity. But, one does have one more subset then the rest - but no it does not - to say that is to imply that infinity can have more - but infinity is "something which has no more nor less - for it has no magnitude - indeed it is not a number, nor is it a number of numbers. It is just a way of saying "endless" in mathematical terms."
Therefore, nothing can be added to infinity. Nothing can be taken off it. Therefore, to say that there is a subset in infinity which another infinity does not have is to say that there is another subset added to the infinity.
But to say this is to presume the infinity. But we should come to terms with this everlasting truth that an "infinity" cannot be presumed since it is not a number. It is not a magnitude. It is not a value. It cannot increase. It cannot decrease. To presume an infinity and to presume another and to compare them is NOT to compare their number because to compare their number is to presume that an Infinity is Finite. That is, that an infinity has been counted and seen as equal to another infinity except for one particular infinite. But that is false.
An infinite is not a set of numbers - it is just an endless progression - therefore however we pair the two infinities up, there is more to pair up - and to say that except for that special subset, all others are obviously paired is a good objection.
Our response is: an infinite has no magnitude - therefore more or less does not apply to it.
Our other response is: an infinite cannot have an extra subset, for it wouldn't be an infinity and it would have to begin somewhere and that is "nothingness" and it will progress to the first singularity it identifies and that is "1" and then it continues to infinity.
To say that now we begin with say "2" is just a play with words. It's to say that "one" should be read "two" and that "two" should be understood as the first in line.
This is confusing the semantics of the numbers by playing with the numbers.
The truth is that by sinking deeper and deeper into this swamp we have made for ourselves, this intellectual swamp, the more confused we get and we think it is working, when in fact it bears so many inherent contradictions - these should not exist in maths.
So - we have asserted our belief that all progressions should have a beginning and that infinity is not a number nor a magnitude by definition and that nothing can be added to it.
We have also done the following:
> Shown that all infinities are equal in cardinality
> Shown that all potential infinities cannot exist in a progression
> Shown that all beliefs that some infinities are greater than others are a result of stopping the progression towards infinity (thus making it finite) and then comparing
> Shown that Cantor's theorem is demanding the impossible
> Shown that any progression should have a beginning and a direction and the beginning should be a basic unit of that progression (which is 1)
Some may say that the following progression rejects this last understanding:
3,4,5,6,7,...
Where 3 is (1+2) and so on.
But that is acceptable, since it does begin with 1.
And what about 1,4,9,16,25,...?
Well, that also begins with 1.
So, the 'x' must begin with 1. Must!
All numbers must be known as we have always known them - multiples of 1. If we change our understanding which was given to us directly by our minds without any effort on our part or on the part of nature, then we may fall into contradictions with reality and intuition.
But, some say that the following infinity has more than the other:
x-1 where x is a natural number
x+1 where x is a natural number
0,1,2,3,4,...
2,3,4,5,6,...
But in this case, can we say that the first infinity has two more elements? We'll say:
You cannot compare the two infinities unless you compare them by their cardinalities - because 2 is not the same 2 of the other, but is equivalent to the other's 0. This is due to the rule that all infinities begin with the first, then the second and so on and these are shown by:
1,2,3,...
And this is the rule for all progressions. Therefore:
1,4,9,25,...
1,2,3,4,...
So, you can see that by comparing this to:
0,5,10,15,...
1,2, 3, 4,...
You'll get:
1,2,3,4,...
1,2,3,4,...
And that is equal.
So - you compare with cardinality-numbers. You should not judge a number by its individual value, but by its equivalent in the other infinity - in that way, you will find that all infinities are equivalent - showing the correct understanding of mathematics.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Cameo: The Flute Player
The following fiction is an attempt by the author to respond to a particular philosophical analogy which denies the eternality of the soul using a similar fiction. That analogy states that "life to the body is like the music of the trumpet. As long as the trumpet is in good working-order, harmonious music can be heard as though it is alive. But once you break the trumpet, then no sound is possible. Analagous to that, our life is possible only by the correct harmony of the matter that constitues our body. Once this harmony is broken, the matters decomposed, then life is gone - finished - nada."
The following fiction is a satirical response to this analogy to show its absurdity and shortcomings.
The orchestra was playing one of the masterpieces of French baroque. The night was young and the air was fresh.
The violinists, the celloists, the pianist - all were playing. And the finest flutists in all of France. And three of them were masters of the art - and one of those three, a genius of music - he was the younger of the three.
And I? I was the composer of the orchestra, and I have a story I would like to share with you.
It was in the middle of this perfect performance, as the audience were listening to the sounds of music, that I heard someone - or rather, 'something' - sing.
Now, I have been a composer for years, and I have come across instruments by the thousands. But I had never heard flutes singing!!!
And they were the same three I have mentioned earlier. Keeping one ear to the act of composing, I thus lent the other ear to what they may be saying.
One sang, "seize the moment, enjoy and be merry."
The other sang, "I wish this would never end!"
And the younger flute sang, "fear not - for our sounds are not of today, but of tomorrow. Our voice is robust and eternal."
"Eternal?" they sang back.
"Eternal. Forever singing, and composing at my heart's content."
"Eternal?" they repeated, as the baroque procession played on.
"Eternal," it replied. "I am to shower the skies with the echo of my voice; to sing the flowers open, to symphonise the sunset, to soothe the stars at night with Vivaldi's concerto La Notte."
And as the flute melted in its own dreams, it released tiny bursts of emotion - so passionate, so dreamy, it brought tears to my eyes.
"Eternal?" they repeated.
"Eternal," it replied, "eternally alive - eternally happy - eternally true."
"Rubbish!" cried one flute, letting off an angry nuance.
"Ridiculous! cried another, leading to an irritated flurry of notes.
"Wishful desire!"
"Impossible hopes!"
"Delusional lies!"
"Idealistic notions!"
"Rebellious immaturity!"
"Ignorant fanaticism!"
But the flute would sing away, in harmonic contrast to its counterparts. Not once did it retreat a note. Not once did it fall back an octave.
"Does this young flute not know, that life depends on the shine of our brass, or the quality of our voice? And without them, don't you realise we are then no more?"
But the flute did not listen.
"Why are you so optimistic? You will die when those lips stop blowing and those fingers stop playing."
But the flute did not listen.
It's voice did not quiver, and it sang with pure grace, I had fallen in love with the instrument. My soul was locked in a blinding ecstasy, linked to the sway of this young flute as it sang deeper and deeper, and closer and closer, and nearer and nearer to a climactic finale.
The other flutes watched enthralled as they saw the young one steal their stage, letting free all the urges trapped inside, expressing it with notes of such seductive nature, it reduced the entire audience to tears and awe.
But just then, at the heights of mystical apprehension, the utmost point of ecstasy, the little flute slipped from the fingers holding it and crashed mercilessly to the floor ...
But the orchestra had not stopped its music, even though their romantic hero had met a tragic end - there it lay in silence: shattered into pieces.
The young genius took his broken instrument off the floor and laid it gently in its case.
I heard the two elder flutes burst out in singsong laughter. Something boiled inside me.
"See how silent it returned to its grave," said one.
"Sing for us now, little one," mocked the other. "Come back as you'd promised us."
Oh, how I wished it would sing - how I prayed to God!
But it didn't sing... It didn't...
It seemed that the young flute had indeed been grossly mistaken.
And our genius flutist did not leave either. He waited for the orchestra to end the masterpiece. When it did, he stood up for all the audience to see. Then, with a one-two-three and as if he had planned this all along, the young genius began to whistle a tune. It was difficult to distinguish what it was... but I didn't have to search too long for the answer...
It was a beautiful excerpt from Vivaldi... and his famous concerto "La Notte".
The following fiction is a satirical response to this analogy to show its absurdity and shortcomings.
The orchestra was playing one of the masterpieces of French baroque. The night was young and the air was fresh.
The violinists, the celloists, the pianist - all were playing. And the finest flutists in all of France. And three of them were masters of the art - and one of those three, a genius of music - he was the younger of the three.
And I? I was the composer of the orchestra, and I have a story I would like to share with you.
It was in the middle of this perfect performance, as the audience were listening to the sounds of music, that I heard someone - or rather, 'something' - sing.
Now, I have been a composer for years, and I have come across instruments by the thousands. But I had never heard flutes singing!!!
And they were the same three I have mentioned earlier. Keeping one ear to the act of composing, I thus lent the other ear to what they may be saying.
One sang, "seize the moment, enjoy and be merry."
The other sang, "I wish this would never end!"
And the younger flute sang, "fear not - for our sounds are not of today, but of tomorrow. Our voice is robust and eternal."
"Eternal?" they sang back.
"Eternal. Forever singing, and composing at my heart's content."
"Eternal?" they repeated, as the baroque procession played on.
"Eternal," it replied. "I am to shower the skies with the echo of my voice; to sing the flowers open, to symphonise the sunset, to soothe the stars at night with Vivaldi's concerto La Notte."
And as the flute melted in its own dreams, it released tiny bursts of emotion - so passionate, so dreamy, it brought tears to my eyes.
"Eternal?" they repeated.
"Eternal," it replied, "eternally alive - eternally happy - eternally true."
"Rubbish!" cried one flute, letting off an angry nuance.
"Ridiculous! cried another, leading to an irritated flurry of notes.
"Wishful desire!"
"Impossible hopes!"
"Delusional lies!"
"Idealistic notions!"
"Rebellious immaturity!"
"Ignorant fanaticism!"
But the flute would sing away, in harmonic contrast to its counterparts. Not once did it retreat a note. Not once did it fall back an octave.
"Does this young flute not know, that life depends on the shine of our brass, or the quality of our voice? And without them, don't you realise we are then no more?"
But the flute did not listen.
"Why are you so optimistic? You will die when those lips stop blowing and those fingers stop playing."
But the flute did not listen.
It's voice did not quiver, and it sang with pure grace, I had fallen in love with the instrument. My soul was locked in a blinding ecstasy, linked to the sway of this young flute as it sang deeper and deeper, and closer and closer, and nearer and nearer to a climactic finale.
The other flutes watched enthralled as they saw the young one steal their stage, letting free all the urges trapped inside, expressing it with notes of such seductive nature, it reduced the entire audience to tears and awe.
But just then, at the heights of mystical apprehension, the utmost point of ecstasy, the little flute slipped from the fingers holding it and crashed mercilessly to the floor ...
But the orchestra had not stopped its music, even though their romantic hero had met a tragic end - there it lay in silence: shattered into pieces.
The young genius took his broken instrument off the floor and laid it gently in its case.
I heard the two elder flutes burst out in singsong laughter. Something boiled inside me.
"See how silent it returned to its grave," said one.
"Sing for us now, little one," mocked the other. "Come back as you'd promised us."
Oh, how I wished it would sing - how I prayed to God!
But it didn't sing... It didn't...
It seemed that the young flute had indeed been grossly mistaken.
And our genius flutist did not leave either. He waited for the orchestra to end the masterpiece. When it did, he stood up for all the audience to see. Then, with a one-two-three and as if he had planned this all along, the young genius began to whistle a tune. It was difficult to distinguish what it was... but I didn't have to search too long for the answer...
It was a beautiful excerpt from Vivaldi... and his famous concerto "La Notte".
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Cameo: The Tree and its Shadow
The fiction written below is a very soft analysis of the Body/Mind problem, and somehow seems to be the more sceptical response to a purely materialist interpretation of the world.
It just stood there all alone. Right in the middle of a meadow sweeter than the scent of honey, prettier than the illusional rainbow, more mysterious than the moors of south England, stood a mighty tree; a magnificent tree; a majestic Sweet Chestnut tree. It was a marvellous thing. The only problem with it was this: it didn't know it was a tree.
All the flowers would whisper to it: You're a tree! You're a tree!
But it would refuse, point-blank.
All the sparrows would sing to it: You're a tree!
But the tree would not agree.
Even a man, a philsopher so-to-speak, came up to it with a walking stick and exclaimed loudly: You're a tree! I know you are a tree!
But the tree simply could not see!
How do you know I am a tree - it said - what evidence can there be? Give me proof, O quarrelsome ones, or peace! and let us quarrel no more.
What are you then - said a black-feathered rook - if not a tree?
I am a phantasm. A mere illusion. A shadow that flickers with the wind - said the tree.
So the rook asked: Where is "evidence", lovely sir, that you are what you say to be?
Said the tree: look at the sun. It is bright is it not. It's light is my spirit of life. When the sun rises I am born, then my life grows shorter, then I wilt, then I die. Do you not see me, this dark illusion on the grass?
The shadow! - they cried - that is not you, but your shadow. A mere illusion as you say. But you are a mighty tree, eternally strong and free!
Eternal? - scoffed the tree - my life is doomed. What gives me life takes it from me. When the sun ascends the skies and comes to its zenith, my life is taken, swift and sore.
But you are not who you think you are - said the philosopher, amused - you are not a shadow, but a tree.
The tree said: Inform me, noble philosopher... what is a tree?
A tree - he said - is a wooden growth.
And inform me, noble philosopher - it asked - what is a wooden growth?
It is a substance harder than grass but softer than stone. It is how we humans make houses.
The tree laughed: I am not a house!
The philosopher said: No. But you are made out of something that houses are made of. Wood!
The tree snorted and said: Where is this wood? Why can't I see any wood? Where is any evidence of wood? If there is no evidence, then there is no wood!
You are obstinate - said the philosopher - here!
And he squeezed a twig.
Aaaaaargh! What was that for?
The philosopher said - I touched you. But I did not touch your shadow.
The tree said - You did not, but your shadow touched me. That must have been the cause of pain.
The philosopher said - Tell me. What are you thinking?
The tree said - I am thinking of the pain.
The philosopher said - But I am not touching you. And your shadow shows no sign of thinking.
The tree said - just because you cannot see it, does not mean it is not there.
The philosopher said - very well. If you are a shadow, then you are.
The tree was pleased to hear this.
But the philosopher continued - just let me ask you: can you see me?
Certainly - said the tree.
Do you know why you can see me? - asked the philosopher.
No - said the tree.
The philosopher smiled, and said: Because I am outside you. Now tell me, gentle shadow (for that is your new name), if you see the world because it is outside you, how do you see yourself, for it is not?!
The tree began to think. Finally, it said: What's a wooden growth again?
It just stood there all alone. Right in the middle of a meadow sweeter than the scent of honey, prettier than the illusional rainbow, more mysterious than the moors of south England, stood a mighty tree; a magnificent tree; a majestic Sweet Chestnut tree. It was a marvellous thing. The only problem with it was this: it didn't know it was a tree.
All the flowers would whisper to it: You're a tree! You're a tree!
But it would refuse, point-blank.
All the sparrows would sing to it: You're a tree!
But the tree would not agree.
Even a man, a philsopher so-to-speak, came up to it with a walking stick and exclaimed loudly: You're a tree! I know you are a tree!
But the tree simply could not see!
How do you know I am a tree - it said - what evidence can there be? Give me proof, O quarrelsome ones, or peace! and let us quarrel no more.
What are you then - said a black-feathered rook - if not a tree?
I am a phantasm. A mere illusion. A shadow that flickers with the wind - said the tree.
So the rook asked: Where is "evidence", lovely sir, that you are what you say to be?
Said the tree: look at the sun. It is bright is it not. It's light is my spirit of life. When the sun rises I am born, then my life grows shorter, then I wilt, then I die. Do you not see me, this dark illusion on the grass?
The shadow! - they cried - that is not you, but your shadow. A mere illusion as you say. But you are a mighty tree, eternally strong and free!
Eternal? - scoffed the tree - my life is doomed. What gives me life takes it from me. When the sun ascends the skies and comes to its zenith, my life is taken, swift and sore.
But you are not who you think you are - said the philosopher, amused - you are not a shadow, but a tree.
The tree said: Inform me, noble philosopher... what is a tree?
A tree - he said - is a wooden growth.
And inform me, noble philosopher - it asked - what is a wooden growth?
It is a substance harder than grass but softer than stone. It is how we humans make houses.
The tree laughed: I am not a house!
The philosopher said: No. But you are made out of something that houses are made of. Wood!
The tree snorted and said: Where is this wood? Why can't I see any wood? Where is any evidence of wood? If there is no evidence, then there is no wood!
You are obstinate - said the philosopher - here!
And he squeezed a twig.
Aaaaaargh! What was that for?
The philosopher said - I touched you. But I did not touch your shadow.
The tree said - You did not, but your shadow touched me. That must have been the cause of pain.
The philosopher said - Tell me. What are you thinking?
The tree said - I am thinking of the pain.
The philosopher said - But I am not touching you. And your shadow shows no sign of thinking.
The tree said - just because you cannot see it, does not mean it is not there.
The philosopher said - very well. If you are a shadow, then you are.
The tree was pleased to hear this.
But the philosopher continued - just let me ask you: can you see me?
Certainly - said the tree.
Do you know why you can see me? - asked the philosopher.
No - said the tree.
The philosopher smiled, and said: Because I am outside you. Now tell me, gentle shadow (for that is your new name), if you see the world because it is outside you, how do you see yourself, for it is not?!
The tree began to think. Finally, it said: What's a wooden growth again?
Monday, September 1, 2008
Cameo - Khayyam's notion of Time
The piece below is a fiction and is used for philosophical purposes, a dialogue constructed by the writer between Omar Khayyam, the Persian astronomer and mathematician who devised the Jalali calendar, and a student of his. Khayyam is also referred to as "Excellency":
---------------------------------------------
In the days of Khayyam, a student came up to him, a frothing at the mouth withthe most complex of metaphysical problems. He greeted the mathematician, then said:
"Master! They have declared no one greater than you in the nations of neither West nor East that can better describe the nature of time and crack open the mysteries within its kernel."
His Excellency replied, "I have charted the years and mapped out the days. With calculations I have overpowered Time solely on my own. Therefore, ask your question so I can know."
The Student asked, "Is Time separate from the world or is it an integral phenomenon of the world?"
Khayyam replied, "It is both separate and integral. It is separate because it is an undeniable reality in itself. It is integral because it is totally dependent on the world."
The Student asked, "Explain, so I may understand."
His Excellency replied, "I will refer you to the hourglass. Watch how the grains pour from the upper chamber to the lower. Now regard that cloud. Tell me! Give me the time it takes for it to reach our heads?"
The Student waited for the cloud to reach their heads, then said, "Quarter Time."
His Excellency asked, "How do you know?"
The Student replied, "For it has taken a quarter of the sand to fall into the lower chamber."
Khayyam said, "Bravo! So have you now understood the concept of time?"
"No."
Khayyam then said, "Whose time did you measure?"
"The time of motion of the cloud from point to point."
"How did you measure it?"
"With an hourglass," said the student. "I compared the two motions and based one motion on the motion of the other."
Khayyam said, "Now have you understood the concept of time?? It is the motion of one relative to the motion of another."
The Student then reasoned, "Therefore Time is integral. Solely a mere phenomenon of this world, with no reality, and nothing more."
"You go too fast, too soon. Hold the reins to your intellect, lest it slips in falsehood. Tell me, young man, what is motion?"
The Student said, "Translation from one point to another. Like the rise of the sun from the horizon to the highmost point and then back down in the opposite direction."
Khayyam replied, "In one scene, can sunrise and sunset occur together?"
"No. They occur in two separate times."
"Then how do you say," reasoned Khayyam, "that Time has no reality? If Time is not real, then what is it that separates those two event?"
"I am confused."
His Excellency said, "Then understand that Time is real but dependent."
"Dependent on what?"
"Dependent on the perception of things. For the amount of time that passes depends on the motion of those things."
"But does not motion require time?"
"Yes, and that is why Time is real and separate," said Khayyam.
"Master! How does time pass? Is it an infinite of points or separate moments?"
"It is both. Infinite, because we are never outside the present - and an infinite never moves beyond a point. Separate, because we perceive time as flowing forth, thus there is motion beyond a point, thus there are separate moments."
The Student asked, "You confuse me even more. Why does an infinite not move beyond a point?"
"To move from one point to another, you must first traverse half the distance - and before that, half of the half - and before that, half of the half of the half - and before that an infinity of halves - you will never move!"
The Student then said, "But time does move? Why do you say therefore that time is infinite as well?"
Khayyam said, "Tell me how you perceive time?"
The Student said, "I perceive it as separate events."
"Tell me, are you in the past or future?"
"I am in the present, Master."
His Excellency then said, "Can you move beyond the present?
"Of course. I can think of the past?"
"Do you think of the past in the past - or do you think of the past in the current confinement of the present?"
The Student paused, then said, "In the present."
Khayyam said, "Therefore, know this as truth. You are living on a point in an infinity of points, and you will never depart. That is the eternal present that you are fated to be within."
"Please explain to me the separateness of moments, then."
He said, "To know this, you must know the moment. Learn it, then come."
He said, "Know then, that each point in this infinity represents a graph. Each graph is an infinite line, divided equally into segments. Each segment represents the separateness of the events in time. Thus, when the different graphs (represented by the points on the infinity) are compared, some graphs can 'carry' other graphs,
"How can that be?"
---------------------------------------------
In the days of Khayyam, a student came up to him, a frothing at the mouth withthe most complex of metaphysical problems. He greeted the mathematician, then said:
"Master! They have declared no one greater than you in the nations of neither West nor East that can better describe the nature of time and crack open the mysteries within its kernel."
His Excellency replied, "I have charted the years and mapped out the days. With calculations I have overpowered Time solely on my own. Therefore, ask your question so I can know."
The Student asked, "Is Time separate from the world or is it an integral phenomenon of the world?"
Khayyam replied, "It is both separate and integral. It is separate because it is an undeniable reality in itself. It is integral because it is totally dependent on the world."
The Student asked, "Explain, so I may understand."
His Excellency replied, "I will refer you to the hourglass. Watch how the grains pour from the upper chamber to the lower. Now regard that cloud. Tell me! Give me the time it takes for it to reach our heads?"
The Student waited for the cloud to reach their heads, then said, "Quarter Time."
His Excellency asked, "How do you know?"
The Student replied, "For it has taken a quarter of the sand to fall into the lower chamber."
Khayyam said, "Bravo! So have you now understood the concept of time?"
"No."
Khayyam then said, "Whose time did you measure?"
"The time of motion of the cloud from point to point."
"How did you measure it?"
"With an hourglass," said the student. "I compared the two motions and based one motion on the motion of the other."
Khayyam said, "Now have you understood the concept of time?? It is the motion of one relative to the motion of another."
The Student then reasoned, "Therefore Time is integral. Solely a mere phenomenon of this world, with no reality, and nothing more."
"You go too fast, too soon. Hold the reins to your intellect, lest it slips in falsehood. Tell me, young man, what is motion?"
The Student said, "Translation from one point to another. Like the rise of the sun from the horizon to the highmost point and then back down in the opposite direction."
Khayyam replied, "In one scene, can sunrise and sunset occur together?"
"No. They occur in two separate times."
"Then how do you say," reasoned Khayyam, "that Time has no reality? If Time is not real, then what is it that separates those two event?"
"I am confused."
His Excellency said, "Then understand that Time is real but dependent."
"Dependent on what?"
"Dependent on the perception of things. For the amount of time that passes depends on the motion of those things."
"But does not motion require time?"
"Yes, and that is why Time is real and separate," said Khayyam.
"Master! How does time pass? Is it an infinite of points or separate moments?"
"It is both. Infinite, because we are never outside the present - and an infinite never moves beyond a point. Separate, because we perceive time as flowing forth, thus there is motion beyond a point, thus there are separate moments."
The Student asked, "You confuse me even more. Why does an infinite not move beyond a point?"
"To move from one point to another, you must first traverse half the distance - and before that, half of the half - and before that, half of the half of the half - and before that an infinity of halves - you will never move!"
The Student then said, "But time does move? Why do you say therefore that time is infinite as well?"
Khayyam said, "Tell me how you perceive time?"
The Student said, "I perceive it as separate events."
"Tell me, are you in the past or future?"
"I am in the present, Master."
His Excellency then said, "Can you move beyond the present?
"Of course. I can think of the past?"
"Do you think of the past in the past - or do you think of the past in the current confinement of the present?"
The Student paused, then said, "In the present."
Khayyam said, "Therefore, know this as truth. You are living on a point in an infinity of points, and you will never depart. That is the eternal present that you are fated to be within."
"Please explain to me the separateness of moments, then."
He said, "To know this, you must know the moment. Learn it, then come."
He said, "Know then, that each point in this infinity represents a graph. Each graph is an infinite line, divided equally into segments. Each segment represents the separateness of the events in time. Thus, when the different graphs (represented by the points on the infinity) are compared, some graphs can 'carry' other graphs,
"How can that be?"
Cameo: Meditations on Time I
In the following piece, the writer seeks to argue through experimental means to establish an understanding of an aspect of the nature of time. The writer uses the following fiction to support it.
I, a young handsomely-built silhouette lay thoughtful on a rock, on a beach, on an exotic island. My eyes followed the enchanting luminosity of the golden sunset as I meditated upon this profound idea:
"How strange a thing is Time! How quick its feet as it runs without rest! The days follow the nights and the seasons never stop. The trees blossom to its music and die to its melody. Even the celestial spheres are dragged down into death and decay - look how the sun is killed, how the light is extinguished, how darkness is born again!
What is time? A monster that sentences all mankind to death in a single sweep. A storm that casts fear into everyone's soul. No, truly tell me, what is time?"
And why should I submit to her? If she wants to cleave off my head, why then should I stretch my neck likewise? Let me conquer her. Let me conquer time. And if she cannot be conquered, then let me know her, this angel of death, in all her manifestations and glory. Let me understand Time."
And as I meditated, I realised, "It is the flow of time, the constant flow of moments - momemts so minute I can not perceive, moments so fleeting I can not comprehend. The secret of the 'moment' is the secret of time. For what is moment? Who can ever claim to have seen a moment? Heard a moment? Felt its touch?"
I then said, "Surely to conquer time, is to capture the moment. Carpe Diem in its most literal form!"
Then I said, "I will capture the moment."
So I decided to come back at dawn, before the crowing rooster called and before the first signs of light appeared.
And I did so, prepared to watch the unfolding of time in the rise of the fiery sun.
"For what is time but the unfolding of events, and to feel time one must perceive the events. For time is what separates the sunrise from the sunset, the full-moon from the new. Time is naught but a manifestation of events."
And so I waited, and the first rays of light shot up the horizon. I felt time pass as the shimmer of light gently revealed itself from far and wide.
"I should measure time with moments," I said, "For surely this event is slow. How many moments will it consist of? And how much is a moment? When can I actually say: this is one moment?"
I could give no definitive answer. Instead I resorted to something I could perceive: my own heartbeat...
As the sun rose bit by bit, it did so against the pounding of my heart. I counted silently, beat by beat, and when the sun was finally up, I had enumerated over a thousand beats.
"I could measure the sunrise with the beating in my chest. A thousand beats was a large number indeed. But how many moments is that?"
And I said, "Surely, if I can measure the slow with the fast, as I did with the sunrise and the heart, then I can measure the heart with something even faster. But what is faster than my heartbeat?"
Such a question led me to an hourglass, where every grain of sand took so little time in passing from the upper chamber to the lower chamber that it seemed like lightning.
I took great care, as I held the hourglass ready before me and one hand upon my heart. I turned the instrument.
Thump! I felt that single beat resonating in my body.
In that hugely short period, I found that a very shallow heap of sand had collected at the bottom of the lower chamber. I calculated the grains of sand with immense patience, weighing them against a rock and comparing with the weight of a single grain. To my astonishment, each heartbeat was over a hundred thousand grains falling from upper chamber to lower chamber! I was impressed.
I had come much closer to the 'moment' than I had ever done. Pondering a little, I was sure I was on the verge of grasping Time - the concept and the nature.
"But," I then asked, "if every heartbeat is a hundred thousand grains, how much is one grain? For when I look carefully into the hourglass, I seem to perceive some amount of time, a very tiny amount of time to be sure, as the first grain leaves the upper chamber and falls freely to the bottom. Surely that tiny amount contains several moments."
And so I set off to measure the moments in the falling of a grain. But what is faster than an hourglass?
My mind raced for an answer, and my answer came to me in a flash.
"If I can perceive so small a time as the falling of one grain, it must be due to my detailed perception. And surely, in that little time that I perceive, I can think faster than that grain can fall."
So I set up the hourglass with only one grain in it, then tipped it over and let my mind race. I found that I could only think of two things in that tiny amount of time.
"Thus every event in the world is judged by my perception, and is set against the flickering of my mind. For the mind moves through ideas as the substances move through space. And the time I perceive must be the number of flicks my mind does as the world around me changes. As the sun rose, I perceived a large amount of time. As my heart beat, I perceived an amount of time less than the amount before. As the grains fell, I perceived a tiny amount of time - in fact, so tiny, that it seemed to consist of only two flicks.
But I still do not know... what is the 'moment'?
For I measured the sun with the heart which was faster, the heart with the sand which was faster, the sand with the mind which was faster. But what is faster than the mind? How many moments live in every flick of the mind?
The more I think, the more I feel it's a hopeless pursuit. For everything I perceive, I perceive via the mind - and there can be nothing faster than the mind - if there does exist such a speedy thing, then my mind will not have the capacity to perceive it - and thus, I will never know anything faster than the mind...
So, what is the 'moment'? Can it be anything other than the present? And how much time is there in the present? Infinite, I say. But I cannot perceive it - if I could, then it would not be a moment for me - And that must be why I perceive the present only. Even when I perceive the past, I perceive it through the window of the present... as a memory; a vague blur of what actually happened.
Yes, the present is the most basic of temporal perceptions there is - for every creature can see the eyes of another, but not the eyes of itself - and certainly, a creature can perceive the different timeframes of another, but not its own timeframe.... to do so, it would have to be someone else, somewhere else... and this is impossible!
So, no creature can analyse its own 'moment', for if it could, it would not have been one moment at all, but several moments.
So... what is the 'moment'? It is the time I possess - a time different than anyother - and all other activities are perceived as a multiple of that moment.
Thus Time exists - as real and as solid as anything - but it's measure, it's amount, is also dependent on my perception, as the time I perceive is relative to my very own personal 'moment'. Each person has a personal moment - this is the uniqueness of perception!
I now knew what Time was. It was not a fatal countdown, an apolcalyptic descent. It was simply a relationship of presents - a relationship of moments - and thus I declared:
"Time is always now for me - for the World, there is no such thing as now."
Having understood this, I felt drowsy and so I slept.
I, a young handsomely-built silhouette lay thoughtful on a rock, on a beach, on an exotic island. My eyes followed the enchanting luminosity of the golden sunset as I meditated upon this profound idea:
"How strange a thing is Time! How quick its feet as it runs without rest! The days follow the nights and the seasons never stop. The trees blossom to its music and die to its melody. Even the celestial spheres are dragged down into death and decay - look how the sun is killed, how the light is extinguished, how darkness is born again!
What is time? A monster that sentences all mankind to death in a single sweep. A storm that casts fear into everyone's soul. No, truly tell me, what is time?"
And why should I submit to her? If she wants to cleave off my head, why then should I stretch my neck likewise? Let me conquer her. Let me conquer time. And if she cannot be conquered, then let me know her, this angel of death, in all her manifestations and glory. Let me understand Time."
And as I meditated, I realised, "It is the flow of time, the constant flow of moments - momemts so minute I can not perceive, moments so fleeting I can not comprehend. The secret of the 'moment' is the secret of time. For what is moment? Who can ever claim to have seen a moment? Heard a moment? Felt its touch?"
I then said, "Surely to conquer time, is to capture the moment. Carpe Diem in its most literal form!"
Then I said, "I will capture the moment."
So I decided to come back at dawn, before the crowing rooster called and before the first signs of light appeared.
And I did so, prepared to watch the unfolding of time in the rise of the fiery sun.
"For what is time but the unfolding of events, and to feel time one must perceive the events. For time is what separates the sunrise from the sunset, the full-moon from the new. Time is naught but a manifestation of events."
And so I waited, and the first rays of light shot up the horizon. I felt time pass as the shimmer of light gently revealed itself from far and wide.
"I should measure time with moments," I said, "For surely this event is slow. How many moments will it consist of? And how much is a moment? When can I actually say: this is one moment?"
I could give no definitive answer. Instead I resorted to something I could perceive: my own heartbeat...
As the sun rose bit by bit, it did so against the pounding of my heart. I counted silently, beat by beat, and when the sun was finally up, I had enumerated over a thousand beats.
"I could measure the sunrise with the beating in my chest. A thousand beats was a large number indeed. But how many moments is that?"
And I said, "Surely, if I can measure the slow with the fast, as I did with the sunrise and the heart, then I can measure the heart with something even faster. But what is faster than my heartbeat?"
Such a question led me to an hourglass, where every grain of sand took so little time in passing from the upper chamber to the lower chamber that it seemed like lightning.
I took great care, as I held the hourglass ready before me and one hand upon my heart. I turned the instrument.
Thump! I felt that single beat resonating in my body.
In that hugely short period, I found that a very shallow heap of sand had collected at the bottom of the lower chamber. I calculated the grains of sand with immense patience, weighing them against a rock and comparing with the weight of a single grain. To my astonishment, each heartbeat was over a hundred thousand grains falling from upper chamber to lower chamber! I was impressed.
I had come much closer to the 'moment' than I had ever done. Pondering a little, I was sure I was on the verge of grasping Time - the concept and the nature.
"But," I then asked, "if every heartbeat is a hundred thousand grains, how much is one grain? For when I look carefully into the hourglass, I seem to perceive some amount of time, a very tiny amount of time to be sure, as the first grain leaves the upper chamber and falls freely to the bottom. Surely that tiny amount contains several moments."
And so I set off to measure the moments in the falling of a grain. But what is faster than an hourglass?
My mind raced for an answer, and my answer came to me in a flash.
"If I can perceive so small a time as the falling of one grain, it must be due to my detailed perception. And surely, in that little time that I perceive, I can think faster than that grain can fall."
So I set up the hourglass with only one grain in it, then tipped it over and let my mind race. I found that I could only think of two things in that tiny amount of time.
"Thus every event in the world is judged by my perception, and is set against the flickering of my mind. For the mind moves through ideas as the substances move through space. And the time I perceive must be the number of flicks my mind does as the world around me changes. As the sun rose, I perceived a large amount of time. As my heart beat, I perceived an amount of time less than the amount before. As the grains fell, I perceived a tiny amount of time - in fact, so tiny, that it seemed to consist of only two flicks.
But I still do not know... what is the 'moment'?
For I measured the sun with the heart which was faster, the heart with the sand which was faster, the sand with the mind which was faster. But what is faster than the mind? How many moments live in every flick of the mind?
The more I think, the more I feel it's a hopeless pursuit. For everything I perceive, I perceive via the mind - and there can be nothing faster than the mind - if there does exist such a speedy thing, then my mind will not have the capacity to perceive it - and thus, I will never know anything faster than the mind...
So, what is the 'moment'? Can it be anything other than the present? And how much time is there in the present? Infinite, I say. But I cannot perceive it - if I could, then it would not be a moment for me - And that must be why I perceive the present only. Even when I perceive the past, I perceive it through the window of the present... as a memory; a vague blur of what actually happened.
Yes, the present is the most basic of temporal perceptions there is - for every creature can see the eyes of another, but not the eyes of itself - and certainly, a creature can perceive the different timeframes of another, but not its own timeframe.... to do so, it would have to be someone else, somewhere else... and this is impossible!
So, no creature can analyse its own 'moment', for if it could, it would not have been one moment at all, but several moments.
So... what is the 'moment'? It is the time I possess - a time different than anyother - and all other activities are perceived as a multiple of that moment.
Thus Time exists - as real and as solid as anything - but it's measure, it's amount, is also dependent on my perception, as the time I perceive is relative to my very own personal 'moment'. Each person has a personal moment - this is the uniqueness of perception!
I now knew what Time was. It was not a fatal countdown, an apolcalyptic descent. It was simply a relationship of presents - a relationship of moments - and thus I declared:
"Time is always now for me - for the World, there is no such thing as now."
Having understood this, I felt drowsy and so I slept.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
How to Analyse a Philosophical Question?
When we read a question, do we skim over it, ponder it or actually mentally tear it to pieces?! The following fiction will show us the best answer to a remarkable question.
A wise man was lecturing the youth of
"Where can we find tomorrow's rain?" he asked.
Some of the young men went deep in thought.
One said, "Rain resides with Zeus, the god of heavens, king of the gods of
The wise man smiled. "You, boy, will be a good priest, pious and fearing god."
A second boy said, "No. Rain can be found in the heavenly ocean which flows parallel to the
The wise man said, "You will be a superb cosmologist, understanding the world through signs and symbols."
A third said, "These are all wrong. Tomorrow's rain can be found in the clouds above and the seas below. Rain is the cycle of water."
The wise man nodded and said, "You will be a convincing scientist, knowing the world using concepts and physics."
A fourth boy with a flat nose stepped forward and said, "All these answers are interesting, sir, and may be correct. But tomorrow's rain cannot be found."
"Why?" asked the other boys.
"Because tomorrow's rain is not known – for it is not yet tomorrow. Tomorrow can never be known, so how can one know tomorrow's rain?"
"We can anticipate it using physics and searching the skies," said one of the boys hurriedly.
"True – but how can you anticipate the rain tomorrow if you don't know all the factors that influence it, such as the wind, the heaviness of the clouds and the passing of time? Who here can honestly claim to know every factor surrounding tomorrow's rain?"
Nobody replied.
"So you see; it is impossible to find tomorrow's rain."
At this point, one of the boys objected. "If we learned all the factors surrounding tomorrow's rain, we could find and anticipate it – therefore it is not impossible. In fact, at that point we would be certain that we have found tomorrow's rain."
The boy with the flat nose listened with care, and then said, "While it is logically possible to learn all the factors that surround tomorrow's rain at this moment, it is impossible to learn anything of the future factors that will affect it at a later time, for to do so, one should be able to move to and fro the dimension of time, which to my understanding is impossible. So, if we can't know what factors will influence it later, how can we be sure that the rain will come to
The boy objected again. "If we could know all the factors that exist in the world, all the centres of gravity that cause the motion of the earth and heavens, we will be able to anticipate the future."
The flat-nosed boy replied, "You can know all the factors of the world if you could perceive all the world. But you only have five senses that take in colours, tastes, smells, touches and sounds – what if there existed something that cannot be visualised, tasted, smelled, touched or heard? How would you know of it? So how can you be certain that you know all the factors of the world?"
"We can't," said the boy, defeated and dismayed.
"Then we can never ever find tomorrow's rain."
The wise man beamed at the flat-nosed boy and patted his head. "What's your name, boy?"
"Socrates."
"You, Socrates, will be an excellent philosopher – one of the best
"Sir," replied Socrates, "you can never know tomorrow's Socrates – so how can you anticipate my future?"
The wise man said, "I am not anticipating the future… I am perceiving the present."
And indeed he was, for Socrates became the fountainhead of European philosophy that has endured the sands of time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What does the fiction tell us? Many things – but let us systematically grasp the hidden wisdom in this fiction.
The fiction can be divided in 2 parts. Part 1: different kinds of answering. Part 2: the best answer and its reasons.
Part 1: Different Kinds of Answering
We saw a wise Athenian ask a question to four young men. Each replied and the Athenian would categorise them based on their answers.
The first answer was a religious one. An answer that puts god as the ultimate response is one based on piety and humility, and this is why the wise man recommended the temple for him.
The second answer was a cosmological answer, an answer which reflected the traditional understanding of the world. Such answers can be found amongst mystics and rather spiritual philosophies which explain the world through a series of symbols and gestures. One should dismiss them merely for their approach, as strange and distant as it may seem.
The third answer was a scientific answer, a rational answer, a good answer, but an incomplete answer as shown by the young Socrates a few passages later. It used real entity concepts such as "clouds" and "seas" and real relational concepts such as "water cycle" to explain the phenomenon. While this is an interesting answer, it is demolished by Socrates.
The fourth answer as given by Socrates can be summarised as follows:
"We do not know the factors that surround rain now to anticipate it for tomorrow. So we cannot find tomorrow's rain."
The first objection brought against was: "It is possible to learn all the factors surrounding rain now."
Socrates' response was something like: "Even so, it is impossible to learn of any future factors that may influence the rain."
The second objection was: "It is possible to learn all the factors of the world so as to anticipate the future, such as rain."
Socrates' response was totally destructive: "It is impossible to be certain of knowing all the factors of the world, since it is always possible that there are factors we cannot perceive and factors we cannot understand."
This argument can be better reflected in a mathematical formula where you have an infinite number of variables – it is impossible to know the values with any number of formulae.
Thus, with certainty gone, tomorrow's rain can never be identified, since one can never be sure.
This answer by Socrates is the philosophical answer. That answer is not necessarily the truth, but is the only answer of which we can be certain. So, philosophy seeks certainty and strives to establish a firm ground for human understanding of the vast universe that encompasses it.
Part 2: The Best Answer and its Reasons
The Best Answer belonged to Socrates. Why? Because he saw the question for what it really was. Socrates listened to his fellow Athenians as they tried to answer the question, and he found flaws in their reasoning. The real problem for the other boys was their lack of understanding of the question at hand.
"Where is tomorrow's rain?"
Lack of understanding of the question is the main reason for bad reasoning. It is not that humans reason badly, for as shall be shown by Mazdalogy, humans are perfectionists when comes to reasoning. One of the problems is found in "misinterpretation of words by different users".
For example, your teacher asks you to bring out a notebook and you take out a small notepad. She rages at you for not bringing a notebook while you try hard to explain that this is not a notepad but a small notebook. The trouble here is because your teacher and you interpret differently the same words. Sometimes these misinterpretations happen with concepts and universals, causing philosophical debates and ideological wars – all because of a misunderstanding – a misinterpretation.
That is why it is always necessary in philosophy to define every single thing that is said. Of course, this sometimes creates definition wars, where each person tries to force their definition upon others.
So, when the wise man asked "Where is tomorrow's rain?" the first three young men set about answering without actually considering what is meant by the terms "Where", "is", "tomorrow", " 's " and "rain". Herein lies their fault.
The boy who said "Zeus" only considered the word "is".
The boy who said "The heavenly ocean" only considered the word "where".
The boy who said "The clouds above and the seas below" only considered the word "rain".
Only Socrates considered every word and pointed out the crux of the question. The question "where" means that we should be able to perceive the object. The word "is" means we should be able to perceive the object's spatial position. The word "tomorrow" means we should be able to perceive the future or anticipate it. The word "rain" is the object.
Socrates was quick to understand that the future cannot be perceived (we are not concerned about any theories of moving through time at the moment – a thorough essay on Time will be written in the future) Socrates knew that the only way to find tomorrow's rain was to anticipate it. Therefore, Socrates altered the question "Where is tomorrow's rain?" to "How can we anticipate tomorrow's rain?"
Hence, Socrates proved that to anticipate tomorrow's rain with any degree of certainty was to be certain that every factor that surrounds tomorrow's rain and every factor that will surround it in the future are known. Therefore, the next logical question would be "Is it logically possible for us to be certain that every factor, now or in the future, is known?"
The answer Socrates gives to this question is negative. How can we ever be sure that there is nothing more to know? He therefore uses this conclusion as the basis for his denial of any type of certainty of any future event. (This should not be mistaken with David Hume's objection to causality, which runs along similar lines but is meant for a different conclusion)
Now we appreciate the necessity of good analysis and clarifying any potential misinterpretations. So, to answer a philosophical question well, we must first analyse the question, open up the hidden aspects of every word, define the terminology and smell out any hidden questions within the original question. Then, we can rely on our reasoning and be sure that we'll get it logically right.
To end this essay, another point I would like to make is essentially an obvious one. One should never guess – ever! We should never guess that god is a spirit if there is no reason to, nor can we guess that electrons are bad faeries and positrons are good faeries if we have no reason to do so.
Many answers given by ancient philosophers to the questions they had were based on no or little reason. We all know Thales believed everything was made of "water". Just because he lived on an island and saw water as a holy element that provided life to every plant and creature, there was no way he could have been certain of it. If one cannot be certain, one can still guess, and Thales guessed firmly that "water" was the original element. We now laugh at this proposition.
So remember, we can only be certain of something as truth if and only if we are certain of it – meaning, if and only if there is no alternative possibility – meaning, if and only if it is necessary that it is so. Any other type of truth cannot be known for sure by us, and so we must either not believe, or simply not care, or any other sensible approach.
We will end this essay with a sentence of my own – it is simple, but not simplistic. You may disagree with it at first, but as you dwell on it and "think" about it, rather than "guess and jump to conclusions", you too will agree in the end. The sentence is:
"One may guess and get it right. But one can never think and be wrong!"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This essay ends the Philosophy Foundation Course planned for students of Mazdalogy. This course explored "What is Philosophy?", "Why Philosophy?", "How to Philosophise?", "How to answer?" and "How to analyse questions?"
The next course will be the starting-point for Mazdalogy, where we will begin the true philosophy.
Any comments are welcome and will be replied to.
How should we Philosophise?
OK – I promised an essay on the "self" – an essay that undertakes the task of delving into the many layers of the "self", a process which will continue further into several more pieces of philosophical writing.
However, there is something we must address before we dive into this difficult well of information. This something is "How we should Philosophise?" and I will be dealing with this question in this essay.
How should we Philosophise?
This question can be read in two ways at least, and I wish to answer it from these two angles.
1. How should we [rational beings] philosophise?
2. How should we [Mazdalogicians] philosophise?
As it is expected, the answer to question 2 cannot be much different from question 1. After all, Mazdalogy is only a specific organised approach to the questions of philosophy.
But I will stop the lecture and get to the main body of the essay.
1. How should we [rational beings] philosophise?
Philosophising is, we have said before, a natural tendency for rational beings such as ourselves. It is part of the questioning nature that resides inside us, driving us forward as we thirst for knowledge and understanding.
We have also stated what, in our opinion, philosophy is. The questions "what", "why" and "how" lie at the centre of the philosophical process of inquiry.
We have also explored the method of inquiry, the questions we should ask and the limits of questions and answers. These have been the topics discussed in the previous two essays, and I would recommend them to anyone interested in learning the Mazdalogical understanding of Philosophy and Philosophical Inquiry.
Now that we know what is asking and what we should ask, the next logical step is to determine how we are to set out in finding answers to these major questions. This probing into our world, our "self", our minds, in an effort to discover hidden hints to the vast universe around us is the philosophising spirit.
However, specifically speaking, how are we to probe into the "self"? So, before we actually probe the "self", we should explore how to probe? How do we seek the answers within ourselves? Where can we find these answers?
The world around us is a complex concocted mix of colours, smells, tastes, sounds and senses laid in a background we call Space, moving against an element of Time. We seem to perceive this in one dimension, and we seem to perceive a whole new Space-Time World in another dimension. By this I mean the concept we call "mind" in the English language. In this mind, a whole separate world exists, seemingly disconnected but subtly tied to this world in the form of a single entity – a unity that reflects two distinct worlds simultaneously. This single entity is the entity that perceives these worlds – these colours, tastes, smells, objects and forms. This single entity, this individual, is what we call a "person" – this entity is no other than the "self".
So, we find ourselves amongst the waves of existence and we try to make sense of it. What are the ways we can come up with philosophical responses?
I will provide a fiction to better understand the issues we are exploring.
A philosopher and a scientist were arguing. The philosopher insisted upon rationality, and the scientist waved the flag of empirical knowledge.
An alchemist came forth.
"You, Alchemist, judge between us. Who is right?" they asked.
"You are both wrong," he replied.
The two men were shocked and hurt to hear this. They protested.
"How can both of us be wrong?"
"You are both right," said the alchemist.
The two men decided he was mad.
But the alchemist said, "Can a philosopher rationalise if there is nothing to rationalise about? Can a scientist make sense of experience if he lacks the rationality required?"
So the two men put aside their differences and became comrades.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above fiction shows us two different approaches to understanding the world: 1.Rationalism or pure reason and 2.Empiricism or pure experience.
Rationalism believes that reason is the criteria for truth and falsity whereas Empiricism looks to experience as criterion.
The Alchemist suggests a synthesis of the two, believing them to be complimentary. Truth can be found when rationality weighs the experiences. Without experience, rationality will be lame and without rationality, experience will be a meaningless muddle of senses and passions.
We will be dealing with the Mazdalogical method of finding answers and truths in future essays, where a perfect synthesis of rationalism and empiricism is presented to the student.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
