1

One can explore a thing (and its sense) only forcing it to suffer (i.e. to interact with a human's consciousness) and bounding it in ideal and material worlds: its will, freedom, ability to gnosis and perception, making the gnosis dependent on a human's consciousness.

The actual component of a thing and its essence (metaidea, idea over idea) as a pra-thinking exist independently of our opinions and actions. Just as the ancients discovered the miraculous properties of wood, stone or flame for them. We, discovering a new one, experiment on it, dissect a thing with thought, word, or deed, transfer its pragmatic part to the world of ordinary human thinking. Leaving concepts alone. We create the good in such a way that, in my understanding, there is a desire for harmony and indifference (to the perfection of nature: man sows the uncertainty of being through his prism of perception) in relation to everything subject-conceivable.

Absolute good is unattainable, because a person exists by his reality (actions and praxis), idea (consciousness and thinking) and matter (intention for actions), affecting all worlds simultaneously and instantly. God is the embodiment of absolute goodness. God is that which is indifferent to everything. As an axiom, I take continuity in time and the very continuity of the connection of thinking, cognition and consciousness. I say that they replace each other without gaps, allowing metamorphoses to be realized; otherwise, the law of the existence of the personal universe as such would be violated.

So, how can one see the subject within an object? How can one understand that a thing is able to think, perceive and so on?

Does it make sense to talk of perception other than through our own consciousness?

Is consciousness universal?

Whose thoughts are alike to mine? What books should I read to understand the subjective properties of an object?

17
  • interesting, though dense, thanks.
    – user67675
    Nov 16, 2023 at 3:14
  • @prof_ghost could you be that kindest to recommend me some authors that considered the matter of my questions in the same way as I do? Nov 16, 2023 at 3:20
  • not really, for which i apologize, yes. i can relate to the ideals rather than the phrasing :)
    – user67675
    Nov 16, 2023 at 3:31
  • 1
    Indeed Cartesian dualistic worldview of the subject and object makes this impossible since you already assumed the mutual exclusive relation between them, but contemporary cognitive science supports the embodied consciousness thesis, thus to understand that a thing is able to think, perceive and so on is nothing else but to embed and merge such understanding into the environment as some monistic whole to treat the world as its own model... Nov 16, 2023 at 6:42
  • 1
    That's not inconsistent with prajña (~=pre+jina) which you can easily check its wikipedia explanation: In the state of deep sleep, the Atman, limited by Prana, the vital breath, is called Prājña... that all that exist, all phenomena cosmic and psychical, are rooted in Prajñā... Nov 16, 2023 at 7:27

1 Answer 1

1

The Sanskrit prana, mentioned by @Double Knot in his comment, as well as the Greek "πνεύμα" (pneuma) - which are equivalent - are the underlying concept of the unity of all that exists, independantly of our perception. It is considered as an objective reality, that - although we are constrantly interracting with it - can be reached directly only by non-ordinary states of consciousness, for example meditation and "αταραξία" (ataraxia) respectively.

Also this concept of "πνεύμα" (pneuma) is the Holy Spirit of Christianity and the inner "mechanics" of it are sudied by pneumatology.

Now, returning back to earth, the ancient Greeks - starting with Parnenides - tried to identify this essence you are talking about, the "όν"/"τι είναι", "what it is", the being (ontology) and incorporated it in the core of their philosophy. Nearly everything in ancient Greek philosophy is about this.

Later on Plato idealized this property of things (theory of Ideas/Platonic idealism) in accordance with your related thoughts, in his trying to objectify them, outside of human relativistic perception.

Finally Aristotle, linked the notion of this essence with the definition of things bounded by logos. Logos then, was considered as an intrinsic property of the things themselves (beings) ("τι είναι" - "ον" - "what it is" - being/entity) as per se predication. link(7. Substance and Essence)...

Subsequently this was the basis in which logic was used to identify things, to get to their meaning (although with some conceptual discrepancy).

What you are seeking is more or less the whole history of philosophy and theology.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .