Skip to main content

About time: mind and time.

Personal time is not linear, psychological moments are very different. The reason for this is that our internal states, which are what, more than anything else, shape the course of our existence, are also very diverse and variable. It’s not the world around us which changes maximally, although we seem, but even when the environment remains stable objectively, if we dedicate to observe ourselves, we can see that our subjective experience is still fluctuating, without any specific reason, external and real, or 'scientific'. If we are suspicious, we can also see that, to address this paradox, what we do is look for (and find) the apparent motives of our personal changes in a fully imagined mental contents dependent on our individual psychology. Apparent, not real causes, invented by situation and condition of each one. More or less shared daily illusions…
Motivation, expectations, effort, performance... of people are naturally variable along moments and days. The same activities we do usually make us feel much desire a day than another, we like them to a greater or lesser extent, we perceive that cost us more or less maintain focus, we perform better or worse… And this regardless of the 'excuses' we found. Exactly the same task at a time and at another, in the same context. And we decide to do it or not do, change one way or another, change our mind or intention, justify or otherwise, to think in different ways, understand it in one way or in another really very different one...
Thought is terribly unstable and unpredictable. It flows apart from any overlayed metric, even it flows apart of the objective world! We do not know what moves thought and what does it work, but if we know something is that it is not our will (which is part of it, actually). Thought and will are the most unstable while 'highest' of our mind, as philosophers have always said, it's funny. The 'highest' is what is most properly human and is, at once, what is farthest from us, paradoxically, because is the most variable, unknown and strange to our knowledge. We usually project onto a hidden and mysterious 'God' we invented to explain what we can not explain.
In his high potencies the mind moves by itself, has its own life. It seems an autonomous being, indeed. It is what shapes our subjective life, because, despite that knowledge of its mechanism is completely ‘forbidden’ to us, it is precisely what defines the succession of our life experiences, our personal biography, which gives us the existence in the human way as it is, and orders our experiences as individuals ('soul' of classical speaking or 'being' of phenomenology).
The mind has knowledge but unknowns himself. It is an act of knowledge but not an object. No abstract time of clocks, nor are the apparent objects of world governing mind, it's nothing that we know what does that in reality, we must recognize if we are to be honest. But even as more unknown the mind is, more fundamental becomes and more autonomous, more essential. It is, we must admit, what imposes its vitality and inherent variability.
Showing the mind, by its contents, the attributes of the world, somehow endorses them. The act of knowledge that is the mind is indistinguishable from the object of knowledge that is the world. Mind and world are confused. The mind reaches a level of reality enormous, as the world itself, or the whole, as Spinoza taught. Anybody is shocked by the magnitude that reaches mental world, equivalent to real world, and wonders if must not resign from the search for something so excessive and overflowing. Religious faith is the expression of this waiver, so humane and reasonable when it is due to the inevitable resignation to the recognition of personal inability to understand, but, on the contrary, so irrational and inhumane when imposes a closed doctrine to somebody having the will and the ability to discern beyond, as was the case of Servetus…
Faith, unlike science, should never be programmatic, but healthy and natural acceptance of failure, when it occurs, of what it is programmatic in the field of knowledge and science. The failure must not be programmed. Faith must be, if anything, point of arrival, not the starting point. Otherwise, becomes taxation doctrine, obstacle, waiver and preset and programmed ignorance. Religion and science should be part of the same process, which should not have, really, contradiction or conflict, but pure desire for knowledge, on the one hand, and healthy acceptance, from personal opinion, of the limitations of each one in achieving this knowledge, on the other, in a relationship of complementarity and pure personal freedom.

And what matters to me now is to get knowledge: if not mechanical time or situations or objects themselves around the world, then what is it that gives the becoming of the psychological experience? Is it something magical and metaphysical? (is the mind something magical and metaphysical?) Mind becomes world, but is it actually world? Is its secret so inscrutable that we should withdraw explain it scientifically, by simple caution, or, on the contrary, have we to believe that something empirical, although hidden from our knowledge, influence or conditions or govern the evolution of our consciousness, thinking and willing? Should we ignore Servetus or should we believe him? Can we really make a science of the soul and spirit, in terms of Christianity or any other religions, without falling into a kind of sacrilege?

Popular posts from this blog

Prana, qi, ki...

‘Prana’ is a Sanskrit word for breath or ‘air inspired’ (from the verb ‘pran’: aspire), but also means ‘universal and invisible energy that enters the body through breathing’. Prana is a physical principle that permeates all forms of life, that which gives life and wisdom to beings and that is or comes from a kind of ‘universal spirit’. The first mention of the word ‘prana’ appears in the Rig-Veda, the oldest text of India, in the mid-second millennium B.C.
Prana shares the global sense of ‘air-life-wisdom’ with many terms of different ancient cultures: Greek ‘psyché’ and ‘pneuma’, Hebrew ‘ruach’ and ‘néfesh’, Latin ‘spiritus’ and ‘anemos’, Arabic ‘ruh’... or the Hindu atman, which also means soul while air or breath. (See the post ‘Pneuma...’ of this blog). Often, too, prana is confused with jiva, another Sanskrit term for soul-air, as there is a close connection between them. Jiva, in particular, would be the portion of air or prana which is located specifically in the cavity of the h…

Giordano Bruno. The magic.

Giordano Bruno argues in the book ‘De la Magia’ that the absolute vacuum does not exist, there is no space not occupied by any form of matter: In any space, empty as it may seem, there are bodies moving and passing but the invisible air particles, which are also matter. The objects of the world are not isolated from each other, among them there is a continuum of matter, he states; imperceptible space among perceptible bodies is a continuum, rather than separate, mediates between them, communicates and keeps them united. The air (or 'aerial or ethereal spirit' as Bruno calls) is an imperceptible body, in principle, to our senses but by itself is a true physical intermediary continuous among all bodies, which is endowed with great activity and effectiveness upon the soul, that is closely united to it, he says, and has a strong resemblance to it, at a time that is very different from substance of thicker perceptible objects that it links.
"The vacuum, i.e. a space without bodi…

The physical philosophers: Anaximenes.

The work of the pre-Socratic Ionian philosophers often has been interpreted, over centuries, in a simplistic way throught the prism of a modern reductionist materialism that actually has little to do with the original approach of these ancient thinkers. It has been done, many times, a naive reading of their thesis on the elements of earth, water, air and fire as creative principles of the universe. A classical naturalist aproach considered these authors the remote initiators of the natural sciences, which visions and solutions becamed logically obsolete. These called physical philosophers have made contributions of great merit to geography, astronomy, meteorology, mathematics and biology, certainly, but their production is not limited, in my opinion, to the conventional interpretation throught the prism of current science, as their purpose was not that of making a science detached from the whole of man and his daily experiences. Do not be fooled, they were philosophers in the broadest…