A few thoughts on the subject- object aspect of everyday perception
Subjective-objective division is actually
a case of duality. Before delving deep, try considering cases of duality of scientific interest and how they've been tackled over time.
1. Space time duality in special relativity
Lorentz transformations tell us space and time are not absolute, but rather transmutable. That is, there's nothing called absolute space or absolute time, but a fluidic existence of a fundamental reality called space time.
Two things which were thought to be immutable, turned out to be a single flexible reality, the duality being only an illusion.
SPACE AND TIME ARE NO LONGER INDEPENDENT.
2. Wave particle duality.
Waves and particles are conceptually different entities.
But not the case actually. Particles and waves, deep down, exhibit both behaviours. The material existence is neither particulate, nor vibratory in its fundamental level.
One way to model this non dual behaviour is the Schroedinger equation, which shows the interdependence of particle and wave nature at the atomic level. Deep down, the reality is neither fully of particles or of waves, but something entirely different.
3. Something more subtle, Mass energy equivalence
E=mc2
That mass and energy are not different, but a collective unity.
What do all these tell us?
That the duality we perceive is only relative and illusory. On the basis of things is more of a superposed non-dual nature, the qualities being interdependent on each other.
And then there's this observer-observed or subject-object reality, which presumably thwarts all our efforts to dissect its nature. Why don't we just extrapolate from previous inferences and conjecture that this duality is in fact a perceived illusion of a fundamental unity?!
In short the theory would be that there's no rigid dividing line between an observer and the observed. The two concepts would be interdependent and overlapping like we have in waves and particles. The illusion of separation only appears on a gross level.
Consciousness and observer is synonymous. So this must imply that even the "object" an "observer" observes has some element of "consciousness" in it, though it's not very evident like the absence of wave nature for bigger particles.
We can say the observer is like a particle and the observed is like a wave, entirely different on the gross level but the separation is merely the result of an increase in "dimensions".
Just like particles "possess" wave nature, every observer has observed nature and vice versa.
In a different jargon, "Consciousness" must have the nature of material objects and material objects too should have "conscious" nature according to the hypothesis. Just as the universe is pervaded by matter, it's pervaded by consciousness too!
When it comes to "space time", that which brings about the non duality is motion. With "wave particle" it's dimensions.
So what is that which would help us visualize this presumed non duality of "subject object" or "mind matter"?!
Subjective-objective division is actually
a case of duality. Before delving deep, try considering cases of duality of scientific interest and how they've been tackled over time.
1. Space time duality in special relativity
Lorentz transformations tell us space and time are not absolute, but rather transmutable. That is, there's nothing called absolute space or absolute time, but a fluidic existence of a fundamental reality called space time.
Two things which were thought to be immutable, turned out to be a single flexible reality, the duality being only an illusion.
SPACE AND TIME ARE NO LONGER INDEPENDENT.
2. Wave particle duality.
Waves and particles are conceptually different entities.
But not the case actually. Particles and waves, deep down, exhibit both behaviours. The material existence is neither particulate, nor vibratory in its fundamental level.
One way to model this non dual behaviour is the Schroedinger equation, which shows the interdependence of particle and wave nature at the atomic level. Deep down, the reality is neither fully of particles or of waves, but something entirely different.
3. Something more subtle, Mass energy equivalence
E=mc2
That mass and energy are not different, but a collective unity.
What do all these tell us?
That the duality we perceive is only relative and illusory. On the basis of things is more of a superposed non-dual nature, the qualities being interdependent on each other.
And then there's this observer-observed or subject-object reality, which presumably thwarts all our efforts to dissect its nature. Why don't we just extrapolate from previous inferences and conjecture that this duality is in fact a perceived illusion of a fundamental unity?!
In short the theory would be that there's no rigid dividing line between an observer and the observed. The two concepts would be interdependent and overlapping like we have in waves and particles. The illusion of separation only appears on a gross level.
Consciousness and observer is synonymous. So this must imply that even the "object" an "observer" observes has some element of "consciousness" in it, though it's not very evident like the absence of wave nature for bigger particles.
We can say the observer is like a particle and the observed is like a wave, entirely different on the gross level but the separation is merely the result of an increase in "dimensions".
Just like particles "possess" wave nature, every observer has observed nature and vice versa.
In a different jargon, "Consciousness" must have the nature of material objects and material objects too should have "conscious" nature according to the hypothesis. Just as the universe is pervaded by matter, it's pervaded by consciousness too!
When it comes to "space time", that which brings about the non duality is motion. With "wave particle" it's dimensions.
So what is that which would help us visualize this presumed non duality of "subject object" or "mind matter"?!
No comments:
Post a Comment