The Subjectivity of the Perception of Existence

 

For the last couple of years I have been working on an interpretation of Einstein’s Relativity (partially in relation to frames). At the same time I was working on subjectivity in relation to knowledge (partially in relation to frames). A few nights ago, as I was trying to sleep, my brain very rudely interrupted my attempts and before me I saw of the frames all coming together and I realised that I had been working on the same thing, but from a different perspective. To be fair to myself, I had known this but in this moment it all came together in a crystallising moment.

 

A little background, Newtonian relativity posited that there was only one frame of time, which we can call, in my context, existence (see fig.1).

 

Einstein then came along and said that there are multiple frames, dependent on external/objective viewers (see fig. 2).

Henri Bergson then came along and said that time is purely consciousness and then, must be, wholly subjective. What they didn’t seem to realise was that each and every one of them was not analysing what time ‘is’, rather, they were talking about how time is perceived. For them, existence was experiential and not something (which is closer to Newton’s thought) which is just ‘there’, independent of being observed (a bit like- if a tree falls in a forest and there is no one to hear it, does it make a sound? Yes, of course it does). This brings us closer to the German Philosopher Immanuel Kant who said that what we see of something is not what it truly is, but rather what we posit upon it.

 

However, the flaw in these theories, when it comes to an underlying existence, is that each frame is isolated from all others and do not represent the true existential and experiential illusion which we call existence. Given how our knowledge of existence is subjective, it all stems from our selves, we cannot separate life into isolated frames. If we apply Einstein’s adaptation of relativity to existence then we can see that life is not in one frame, although one frame underpins it- conception-funeral/memory, (the amount of time we ‘exist’ in one form or another), but whereas Einstein breaks the frames into isolated events, as viewed form an impersonal observer (objective- maybe a person on  a hill watching the lightning striking, maybe two synchronised clocks) it is not possible to break our experience into such handy little frames (see my entry on context and how there are an almost infinite number of contexts), rather, as nothing is made in isolation, one frame bleeds into the other, and so instead of having one frame within a wider frame we actually have a series of overlapping subjective frames (see fig.3) within the single frame (i.e. existence).

Given how we cannot have knowledge of any one frame in isolation this would then go to suggest a potential clarification of the Socratic paradox. Socrates stipulated that the ‘wisest person is one who knows that they know nothing’ (to clean up his language from the use of the generic word ‘man’) which creates a paradox as to know that you know nothing is to know something. With my work on the overlapping frames one can then suggest that the wisest person is not one who knows that they know nothing but knows, given the overlapping fields of subjectivity (not to mention subjectivity itself), the wisest person would be one who knows that one can know nothing, there is the potential to know nothing, however, the actual possibility to know nothing is as remote as the most distance star to the n^th degree

 

 

‘till next time

The Evolution of God

 

The history of the concept of ‘God’ (here I will neither prove nor disprove the notion of ‘God’ as, to be blunt, no one can and anyone who claims to be able to you should treat the a certain degree of mistrust)  is something which one might find unexpected, but in the following short essay I wish to give a brief overview of what might be called the evolution of God.

 

The concept of higher power predominates all historical cultures, whether or not we can attribute such notions to Neanderthals and early homo sapiens is unknown as they are pre-history (in the sense of the written record) however, in the historical cultures (post-written word not to be mistaken with writing only, it can include pictorial writings) there is a definitive notion of a deity (given this I would argue that even pre-historical cultures would also ascribe to such notions, even if not in the way we envision/they were not consciously aware of it).  What I would define God as is something beyond our comprehension but which provides an answer to the questions we have about life (even if the answers are not, in themselves, comprehensible!).

The reason why I argue that all of the said cultures, even prehistorical, have a notion of god is supported by the concept of the Myth. The Myth is a device which was created for one simple reason- to explain that which cannot be conceptualised. Our entire understanding of the universe comes from conceptualisation which stems from experiential knowledge (i.e. life) and if something falls without the parameters of experiential knowledge it cannot be known, the classic example would be, how do you describe the colour blue to a blind person? Without knowledge of the weather etc. early cultures would look at the world and try to find a reason why there was wind or rain etc., why crops died, why people were born and died. The natural progression from the reasons (gods) not being knowable was to conceptualise them and what is the thing which we (think) we know best? Humans. Thusly, the abstractions started to take on human characteristics. It was windy because a god was being mischievous, there was a storm as a god was angry. This was then taken further to give the gods the likeness of people. In the Judeo-Christian bible it says that the man was created in the image of God, in fact it was the opposite. The many gods were very human (even if they had animal heads) and were prone to the weaknesses of humans- love, hate, jealousy, fear, joy etc. This created a dichotomy as in, if one god was angry that was its nature and another could protect you (as with parents, ‘Our Father who art in heaven…’) from the human like tendencies of another. However, as polytheism started to become monotheism problems emerged. Now, instead of having a whole litany of gods to exhibit the various aspects of human nature, the one God had to embody the entirety of human thought and emotion. Now the one God was truly loving but grew jealous of people eating fruit and thus committed mass genocide (the first holocaust?), who tortured a man just to prove to the Devil that he was loved without question.  This, inevitably, led to questions about how one infused with such terrible contradictions can be a/the true God?

 

The advent of science gave God a new face. Now instead of seeing God in nature, one could look down a microscope and, uh, see God in nature. The most interesting aspect of this was the notion of the impersonal God, the God of the Dutch philosopher Spinoza, who created everything, putting it into ‘motion’ (think the laws of physics) but didn’t intervene on the behalf of people or smite people down for not being in the right building on Sunday etc. however, the premise was still the same, the search for something to explain the world through conceptualisation.

From this brief essay I think one can see that in the beginning was the word and the word was ‘what the heck is going on?’ and as one’s ability to conceptualise changed so changed the mask of that which we superimposed  upon something and yet the word never changed and no matter how far we go, how much we develop, how many different forms of conceptualising are created, the underlying principles will remain, how can we find out what is going, if, indeed, anything is going on.

 

‘till next time

Appearances and Truth

 

‘Since then, as philosophers prove, appearance tyrannizes over truth and is lord of happiness, to appearance I must devote myself’

-Plato

 

For many years (maybe even now) it was believed that the interior manifested itself on the exterior. For example, if one had a good soul then their face would be a beautiful face etc. although what is considered ‘beautiful’ changes through the ages, the argument would be that there are beauties which transcends culture and exhibits true beauty.  Before painting his pseudo-fresco The Last Supper (The Last Supper was painted on a dry wall rather than on wet plaster, so it is not a true fresco, as using a dry wall enabled the artist to tinker) Leonardo Da Vinci spent the year wandering the streets of Milan looking for models to resemble the innerness of the apostles and Christ (I imagine the conversation- you’re so beautiful you should be Divine and you are so hideous you resemble the inner depravity of Judas- would have gone down differently). Although this was something which Da Vinci believed to be true, his liaison with his protege, muse and (possibly) lover Gian Giacomo Caprotti da Oreno, (better known as Salaì) would go to disprove it as Salai was not a person who you would say the exterior matched the inner. This goes to demonstrate that this theory is (almost certainly) nonsense.

Once upon a time a traveller came upon the great Greek philosopher Socrates and looked at him and called his notoriously ugly face monstrum, saying that within him were all the bad vices and cravings. Socrates, according to Nietzsche, replied ‘how well you know me, Sir’. We can talk about Socrates’ virtue as a husband (terrible), father (no idea) and as a man but one thing is for certain Socrates, whether he had inner beauty or not, inspired great beauty. Socrates considered himself a ‘mid-wife’ in that he gave birth to great works. He helped ‘birth’ (get that image out of your head) plays by Euripides, he inspired many playwrights, poets and philosophers, the most famous being his dashingly attractive young student Plato. Here we have to be careful for although Plato, trained as a poet and playwright (he later wrote the ideal society wouldn’t have such wastes of human thought), wrote incredibly beautifully about Socrates we do not know if this beauty was of Socrates or Plato himself.

And here we have the crux of the matter. Beauty lies in the ‘eye of the beholder’ (as in the inner subjectivity which, ironically given the truism, lies beyond the sensual perception) and true beauty lies in substance and not aesthetics.

We live in a world where aesthetics are taking on an even greater role. With the development of technology, the temptation to rely on appearance takes on a greater role with the fast moving way in which culture is consumed. Slow-burners no longer exist. In the 50/60s a song might take eight months to peak at number one in the charts, that was considered a great success, films were judged on quality and not box office. Nowadays, if a song isn’t streamed/downloaded over a million times in the first few hours it is considered a failure, if a film comes out, reports are not on the quality of the film, acting, cultural significance, technique of the director etc. reports all centre around one thing- the box office. If a film takes only £500 million-£1 billion in its first week it can be considered a failure. A film such as Marlon Brando’s The Wild One, the film associated with the invention of the teenager, could come out and if it only grossed £500 million it would be seen as a failure or, even worse, ‘a cult classic’. The superficial now dominates nearly every aspect of our lives. Plato bemoaned the advent of the written word thinking that it would stop people from using their memories and that words would give only the appearance of knowledge. Imagine what he would make of Instagram or Wikipedia. Politics is now divided by looking like you are on the side of the people you voted for in the last election- children could die but as long as it looks like you are supporting your party you can say it is ok.

As society slides towards a future where substance is eradicated for aesthetics and to say that substance should be the rule is frowned upon I would like to remind you of the words of the social psychologist, Erich Fromm:

 

’The fact that millions of people share the same vices does not make these vices virtues, the fact that they share so many errors does not make the errors to be truths, and the fact that millions of people share the same form of mental pathology does not make these people sane.’

And remember, to find truth one must first look behind the painting, behind the mask, behind the façade as all that really matters in life lies beyond the sensory world and deep within the soul in which our true selves reside. And in terms of appearance, the philosopher Aristotle once said ‘be as you wish to seem’ or in other words, if you want to appear beautiful then be beautiful in your deeds and thoughts and do not rely on what Master Yoda calls ‘crude matter’ to determine how you appear and how you truly are.

 

‘till next time

The Adulation of the Masses

I was recently nominated for an award. Normally, in such situations, I scoff but given the significance for those nominating (for them personally) and my current position I decided that I had to go along with it. For some reason, you can’t just say, ok fine…, you have to fill in a form saying why you deserve it, you need a testimony of those working with you and those who nominated you (a lot of running around saying ‘have you done my form yet?’). I am frequently told the significance of the award however my general discomfort doesn’t only stem from an awkward social disposition but from also what awards mean to me, namely nothing.

 

How we view ourselves primarily comes from two sources- internal and external locus. External would be things such as awards and internal would be sense of self. My locus of identity is primarily internal although we cannot discount that nothing stems from isolation. The smallest nudge from a good friend can mean more than all of the awards in the world,

‘All my loyal and much-loved companions

They approve of me and share my code

I practice a faith that’s been long abandoned

Ain’t no altars on this long and lonesome road’ 

-Dylan,

which is undeniable external but is built upon something more substantive then the adulation of the masses, it is built upon internal mechanisms.

 

I have noted many people spend many hours of their lives passing judgment upon others, there is nothing such as ‘there is a person, meh’ but it is rather ‘X did this or T didn’t do that’, all irrelevant and tedious. Yes, at times there is substance ‘Y didn’t stop the nuclear rockets exploding, what a douche’ but mostly is it based on aesthetics, external judgments. The problem with this is that those who primarily practice such behaviours (making judgements on people based on external loci) then, in turn, view themselves that way thus post hoc ergo propter hoc, external judgements shape how people view themselves which is then passed on to others and before you know it it becomes the norm. When things become the norm they are considered to be the basis of a good person/society (look at the English and alcohol culture, for example) yet as the psychologist Erich Fromm wrote in his book The Sane Society, ‘The fact that millions of people share the same vices does not make these vices virtues, the fact that they share so many errors does not make the errors to be truths, and the fact that millions of people share the same form of mental pathology does not make these people sane.’ and subsequently we end with a culture which is so desperate to gain external approval that we stop listening to the voice within, ambition becomes thin and we end with a culture in which insecurity and neuroses become the norm.

 

Oh, and thanks, by the way.

 

‘till next time