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…

Mind, body and environment.

Memory is not a 'copy' of reality. The past is not in our memory. It is there as little as the future is. The mind is present activity. Contents that mind produces, about what has already happened or what might happen, are the result of its activity, they are not the mind. Brands of memory remain with some of our experiences, but the fact we want to see in these brands the reality itself or a reproduction of it is due to the bias of our anthropocentric and psychologizing vision, by which we replace the world by the contents of thought.
Our mind does not work like a computer, says R. Epstein. Our brain actually is not an information store. Our brain, strictly speaking, does not process information nor recovers knowledge nor saves memories. The computer is just a metaphor. What the brain does, more or less, is to resonate with reality; it is like a soundboard that, as everything, operates in the present, not in the past or in the future. It works in the physical present, with ele…

Psychology and Life

The more certain existence and the better we know is indisputably ours, because, of all other objects, we possess external and superficial triable notions, while we perceive ourselves internally, deeply. What do we check then? What is, in this exceptional case, the meaning of the verb 'to exist'? First I see that I passage from one state to another state. I'm cold or heat, I'm happy or sad, I work or do nothing, I look around me or think about something else. Sensations, feelings, volitions, representations, such are the modifications among which distributes my existence and which color it alternately. I change, then, without ceasing. (p.13)
Thus the anthology of Henri Bergson (1957), conducted by Gilles Deleuze, starts, with this text of L'évolution creatrice, direct and full of content. And follows:
(...) I say, and rightly so, that I change, but the change seems to reside in the passage from one state to the next state: for each state, considered separately, I bel…