1.22 Ideality-Reality

ideality and reality

section 19 (first updated 1.3.2021)

Where the environment ends the mind begins, one serves as the limit of the other.

 (see section objective/subjective)

From subjective point of view it seems that we outwardly conceive the environment, as if our thinking capacity comes out to conceive the environment. What we often overlook is what is met by this outreaching search of thought are conceptions disclosed by it.  It is kinda of an illusion to think that thought goes out and searches the environment, we do not realize that the environment has a limit, an “edge” per say, which is not anywhere in the environment but is somewhere in the limit of the environment, that being the mind of some observer. But an overarching limit is not physically evident because each object seems to be the limit of another one, but they all have enough space to coexist, nature seems to be a convulsion of objects overlapping other objects but with the capacity to differentiate between each. This confusion derived by perception means that the limit of the environment is not the extent of vision, or as we say the horizon, because the universe exhibits an infinite of environments surpassing each other, the limit of the environment must be where the environment becomes not itself.

What we label as a “subjective” experience is only subjective in the sense that it belongs to a subject, being the observer, insofar as the observer discloses an objective phenomenon by a conception of it. However, what is happening within the mind of the subject may not be subjective at all because the observer may not control exactly what is happening, and any control of it may only occur indirectly, rather than what we assume to be direct control of something, e.g., touching an apple and having it love off the table.

Common image of perceiving, the experience of what is “external” always ends internally in the mind. The extent of vision for example is not the perceptual strength of the eye in relation to distance in the environment, for example certain animals like hawk sees farther, and with telescopic instruments one can see out into space. This means that the extent of vision is where it ends in the mind, or rather what the mind conceived from what it perceives, when I see a rock the extent of vision is that rock.  

The extent of vision or perception is not true limit of nature because the extent of vision is still surpassed by theoretical apperception of the environment, you can  still know a location in the environment even if you do not see it (the measure of distance). This is where Kant says Hume fails:

“Kant draws attention to the flaw involved in this transition: that two types of determinations are confounded (paralogism), namely, empirical de­terminations with categories; concluding from the former to the latter, or in general replacing the first with the second, is quite unjustified.

It is obvious that this criticism expresses nothing other than the comment of Hume that we referred to above (§ 39): that thought-determinations in general-universality and necessity-are not found in perception, and that, both in its content and in its form, the empirical is diverse from the determination of thought.”

Thought does not look out into the world but the world ends in the extent of thought. Where the extension of the environment ends is where the abstract of thought begins. When thought goes out into the environment and conceives it, instantly presupposes that the environment sinks into the thought, and they both meet to conceives the object. The object is the middle point of a potential field of other objects, and the capacity to perceive each of these potential object as a distinct object. An object is both partially physical and theoretical; physical because it has contact with the observer, you can feel and see it. Theoretical because you can know it, or come to have knowledge of what it is either what it is physically or beyond that. The environment as outwardly perceived when inverted enters inwardly towards a limit. The limit of the environment is the abstract conception of thought.

The way our consciousness is positioned to experience the explicit world of objects and its implicit knowledge of thoughts, characterizes precisely what is present as nature. In nature you have a limit where the internal sense of a subjective self ends, this is where the unconscious thoughts “spring-up” in the mind. And also where the external extent of the environment ends, this is where the perceived objects end and the realm of potential objects begin, these limits meet each other in a feedback loop known as the “point of focus”, which in traditional practices of meditation, is the point the mind enters upon and maintains a constant conception of and than it achieves an undifferentiated state between the abstract thoughts we say is out of sight “behind the head”, the Germans call it the indiktnka, and the what is immediately present as the object of thought.

In the Buddhist traditions the practice of meditation involves aiming the focus onto a center also point. And over a certain period of time that point begins to appear to approach the observer or the observer begins to appear to approach the point without actually moving towards each other. In later Islamic Sufism there developed a more estranged practice of this meditation where an object, like a piece of paper, would be placed on a wall or a table, and the aim of the meditation is to focus on that object enough so that it can be moved by the mind. This is a form of mysticism introduced to meditation but it still recognizes a basic intuition about the nature of focus in relation to a point, that after a certain period of time focusing on something, there appears to be a relative movements between the observer and the object wherein they both appear to be approaching each other while maintaining distance from each other. Mysticism speculated as to whether they can break this process by having on side affect the stabilization of the other.

The problem in these “mystical” accounts is that just because there is a mutual appearance of motion between the observer and the object caused by the focus of one onto the other, that does not mean the one can cause a direct kind of motion to the other like in the case, of an object externally moving another. This type of motion incurred by meditation is an internal motion, meaning that the type of motion recognized by meditation describes the fundamental phenomenon of how a conception comes into being, which characterized internal motion of growth, the activity of an observer coming into the event.

This point of focus so happens to be depicted as the same structure as an atom. The way we arrive at knowledge of atoms is by process of magnification which is the focus on a piece of matter, and conceiving within that slab of nature an indeterminate amount of other distinct objects, and than pick out one object from that and focus on that to find a more minute field of other “smaller” distinct object, and this can be done so on and so forth. For example, take a piece of concert and from a certain distance it appears a uniform matter, focus on that and magnify it’s plain, and you see it consists of many small rocks and pebbles, magnify one of those pebbles and it consists of many smaller minerals etc.

The atom is really a spatial limit of matter and not in and of itself an object because it is a unit of uniform motions consisting of a neutron, proton and an electrons forming a spherical field of probability around their relation, with it having a possibility of a discrete measure of a particle on the surface of the sphere of probability. The atom is the event we approach but not fully arrive at. It is the potential event in time.

When we magnify matter and zoom into its structures, this is a simultaneous descending out of this present particular experience and a simultaneous ascension into a different state of experience, or a different point in time, we are ever coming closer and closer to entering upon a new world of experience once we break through to the other side of it.

(see section déjà vu)

This is how a future event in time comes to take hold of the present, or how a potential future event becomes the present. A future event is an abstract scene or an idea, the present is already an event that has taken the form of its material conditions. As time moves forward, the material conditions of the present, loose their organization and reorganize into the form of the future event. For example, at the present there are a set of individuals all within a restaurant enjoying a meal, as a different future event emerges onto each individual at this present moment, it requires that each of them take on the organization of that event, those people, at now different points in space, are going back home, and they take the organization of that event, some are in their cars, some using public transit etc. These superficial examples simply describe the primal form of how the events require a kind of organization, when it comes to more complex events, and these are the ones that have a greater affect in our memory, like a traumatic event, we have the feeling of a déjà vu, which is a recollection of that event after it has happened as a feeling as if it already has occurred before it’s occurrence. This is possible because prior to an event happening in the future, that potential event was an abstract idea in the mind of each individual, and each individual worked towards going to that event in time, the individual recognizes that at one point that event was preconceived as an abstract idea, and now the material conditions at the present meets its requirement and the individual truly finds themselves in it at the present.

The environment is theoretically unlimited and infinite, I.e., there is always another planet after another within a galaxy that is after than another. The limit of this infinity is in the conception of the observer. The environment is limited in the observer in two way: first, the observer only sees a portion of the environment, or sees it in a certain way, or within a specific moment. Second, the notion that the environment is theoretically unlimited is a notion from the mind of the observer, in other words, the environment is unlimited in the mind of the observer because outside the observer the environment cannot be deduced to be unlimited, as any finite conception of it limits it to an abstraction of itself, the environment is therefore only unlimited as an abstract presupposition, which does not mean that it is not truly unlimited but that there is no limit for it other than it being unlimited within the limited scope of the observer.

The other side of mind, in front of it , is the environment, the other side of the environment, the limit of where the environment ends, is the mind.

(Add pic of environment going inside a head) mind extends out into the environment and the extension of environment ends in the mind.

P.92

Cognition really is determining and determinate thinking; if reason is only empty, indeterminate thinking, then it thinks nothing. But if reason is ultimately reduced to that empty identity (see the following paragraph), then it is, in end, lucky to be freed from contradiction after all-through the easy sacrifice of all and import content.”

The conception of looking out through the body to the environment is an interesting perspective because the environment seems to be filled with the conception perceiving it, or rather the extent of the perception is filled with the environment. But when we ask what is behind the environment –“behind the walls” –per say, we are asking what is behind my eyes, the same question of, what is consciousness that discloses a conception of the environment? On some level the body is an object in the environment that is disclosed by the mind.

When we change the level of magnification of the object, the mind stays the same in that it conceives a disclosure of the full extent of the object. As the level of magnification changes from the body which is the approximate point of the mind, to different levels of substratum, further away front that point, the point where the mind is originally approximate to, exhibits a more abstract relation, in other words, the body which is an object in the environment, come together as an event particle. Like we are watching the environment, when the mind goes to the full infinitesimal extent into the environment, it reaches the end and meets itself from the “other side”, which is the conception of where it started from the furthest point away from that conception, where it started is conceived as an atom.

Imagine watching tv, but from the tv points of view, you are a scene also being watched. This is the simulation reality hypothesis. As to whether reality is a simulation or not, does not really affect the fundamental principles of logic and reason.

Whether reality is a simulation or not makes no difference for universal facts — the fact that in a simulation there is still an observer experiencing some phenomenon, just like being in a dream, objects still feel physical and the dreamer does not know they are dreaming until waking up. But it does bring into question the nature of the observer in relation to the matter.

Light is a trajectory this is why it is the limit of motion, no matter passes it without being disclosed by it. For example, when you perceive something it is not only that the photon from the light of that thing is received by the retina of the eye but that the eye also sends out a photon to connect with the light from the object.

Light is the trajectory of mind, light is the primary passage of nature where ideas are transmitted, as they say “put a spotlight on it”, light is the spotlight within which anything is conceivable, this is not because light allows you to see, but rather light itself is the concept which is moulded into the object.

The neurological activity of mind are the first layer of quantity sent out in the void which is filled by the idea.

The abstract ideas of mind are the ideality of reality, they at an atomic level form the building blocks of matter. (see Hegel on ideality is reality)

The mind aims to arrive at a state where its ideas are at the same time the objects of its environment, this process is of minimizing the distinction between the object and the idea such that their conception is simultaneous relation. The mind arrives at that state only so as to create the environment from which it has to do that again.

There is theoretical discrepancy between the activity as naturally happening in relation to the phenomenological experience conceiving the natural occurrence of the activity. As per whiteheads understanding of durations, any static object is in fact an abstraction of some duration. That objects are essentially durations should be of no surprise to anyone who is student of theoretical physics. For example, the frequency of sound is a good elementary demonstration of durations generally…

The duration of an activity is complex because on the one hand we take the duration as the time something last when first noticed until identified as having changed or ceased. Yet the principle of sound so long as it is a concept has no beginning or end, it is absolutely true. For example, a deaf person does not experience no sound but is unable to differentiate particular frequencies of sound, therefore his hearing is muted by the continuous undifferentiated tone (Alan watts 2:35:10). The organ of hearing like all organs of sensations differentiate between levels of fundamental natural elements whose existences are eternal, the equivalent of this is mathematical constants.

The concept of sound is naturally occurring because it captures a form of universal motion. For example, the difference between light and sound concern the nature of the same universal form. Light travels as transverse waves and can travel through a vacuum. Sound travels as longitudinal waves and needs to travel through a solid, liquid or gas: it cannot travel through a vacuum.

You have first the universal concept which is the idea, the experience of it is the residue, the remaining effect of the concept that verifies it. For example like an airplane first passing by then you hear the sound after. The sound after is analogous to the phenomenological experience of the immutable concept.

The phenomenological experience of the concept is the duration having for it beginning and end. The object characterized by the concept and the conceiving experience of the concept, determine the frequency of the duration. The phenomenological experience of the concept governs rate of the frequency the duration of the object assumes. Whether the lifetime of a housefly bears the duration of 28 days in contrast to the 79 years of human life, only prove that these timeframes are themselves experiences of some idea. (add white head durations in durations here) the idea is the concept in the duration that distinguishing a change in the activity whether that change be pattern or spontaneity.    

This image describes the spontaneity within pattern. that within a pattern there are abruptions of spontaneity, in fact they defines each other, what makes up a pattern is the fact that these abruptions harmonize into a rhythm and this rythm becomes their continuity connecting them.

A “heart rate” exhibits the frequency of a series, in other words, series are in a frequency.

A family of durations operates this way.

The experience is NOT only the event that externally occurs for observation. It is rather the very internal duration taken by consciousness as the object. Durations exhibit frequencies defined as:

“the rate at which something occurs or is repeated over a particular period of time.”

The reason why a rate is repeated relates to the quality of continuity which is not merely the quantity of repetition. The reason why something happens over and over again relates to the conserved element in which the rate of change maintains the repetition. It is the conserved element that is the quality of the repetition.  This conserved quality characterizing the frequency of continuity is the form of consciousness for discovery.

The reason why there is repetition in continuity is for the purpose of discovery. (This is how progress is the only stability, how it stays active, it reinstates itself over and over deriving new knowledge with every rediscovery. New knowledge of what? Of nothing because it is there where something arises into being. It is unsatisfactory for us to claim that things simply arise into being even if the existence of objects are derivatives of immutable forms. It is even more aggregating for us to have to assume immutable concepts without first “discovering” them after demonstration. Humans are by nature potentially scientific beings and therefore require understandings of the concept.

This understanding does not produces the truth of the concept because the truth is already presupposed by the need to investigate it, like in a mathematical proof you are simply asked to “show your work”, of already self-evident axioms, along with rules of inference. Now we say these are developed but still this means that their development is an advance from their disposition. The understanding however is not initially aware of this fact about itself and therefore require this understanding about the nature of its own understanding.

(See falling into nothing)

Sufism

Mind determines matter- abstract determines abstract

Traditions like Sufism for instance could not figure out how mind can alter matter, or in more scientific terms how it can determine future events, because they supposed that mind can determine matter in the same way as matter can determine matter, that is by direct contact. When we throw on object against another it causes it to move, but mind causes motion in a different sense. Mind determines matter not in the spatial sense because the event is already in some sense fundamentally determined and what is determined within the circumference can only interact externally with each other.

Mind determines matter in the fundamental sense of actually creating the material circumstances for things prior to their present moment. But in order for the present to consist of it’s determined circumstances, it must have been determined from the past to be at one point a future event. The objects in the past or future are themselves abstract because they do not exists materially but only potentially, and because they are not in the present for direct contact. It is difficult to see how an abstract substance can cause change or move a concrete object, because it cannot directly be in contact with it. But it is logical to suppose that before it be concrete an abstract substance can determine another abstract substance which then can be met in the present as a concrete event. Mind can determine a future event to be concrete in the present because the future event is abstract.