Monday, 22 June 2009


Reality , an elusive yet pertinent question for any individual. What could we consider as real? The conception of world, that we have , is brought by our thoughts, which is the domain of our mind and thus points that reality lies in our head. Reality is what we think , and nothing else. Let's pause here for a moment and reconsider this suggestion.
If reality is what is in our head, then , whatever isn't in our thoughts shouldn't exist. It implies, if I don't consider an item , it doesn't exist.
Doesn't sound very true , for there are things beyond our thoughts that exist. Nevertheless, it doesn't play down the suggestion made above completely. That which exists outside of our thought's domain , is known to us as existing outside of our mind, this knowledge of existence beyond thought might as well corroborate its existence. Its very similar so as to say , "I know what I know , but I don't know what I don't know". And this gives the possibility of existence of that which is unknown to our thoughts.

From one of the books that I am reading currently, I found that there are two aspects of thought towards an object, Classical and Romantic. Under Classical thought , lies the answer to why and how. Alluding to maintaining a bike, author says, classical thought is like, being aware of the how and why of the bike, so that at any time bike is under your control. You can repair it for you know about it. Romantic thought, lies with the idea of just seeing things as it is. No questions , no altercations, no research. Just as it is. Like seeing your bike as just a mode of transport and not bothering to know whether it has a chain that needs to be greased regularly. Both variety are nonetheless thoughts and this shapes our vision.

However , the author goes on to describe that there is another important aspect that has been overlooked above. That domain which lies beyond thought. He names it as quality.
Quality is an undefined objective truth. Quality branches to classical and romantic version. Whereas classic version is concerned with reasoning, logic and definitions, romantic is concerned with uninterpreted. He says, romantic quality can be understood as that time lag which, although minute, comes up between sight and understanding. When an object is sighted, it is transmitted to mind and interpreted. There is a time lag. This implies that what we see was in the past and present is never seen. This is the romantic ideal.Thus we dont or cant define things as the romantic ideal suggests.
The classical ideal of quality branches into mind and matter. Mind , through its objective reasoning and logic identifies quality in the matter. Quality is that which exists, irrespective of the viewer's understanding, only that it is understood differently by different person.

However, a pertinent question that keeps nagging me is, whatever thought process we may apply in understanding the reality has to come form the mind itself and thus cannot visualize itself. It requires a vantage point which is beyond our minds. A lunatic isn't lunatic to himself, his world is defined in his thoughts and despite of what a "sane" person may think of him, he is still rational in his own world. If thought is that which defines our world , then one's world has to be exist in his thoughts only. There doesn't have to be an objective reality. However , mind rebels against that and points out belligerently towards the objective realities if the world. Its difficult to rise above one's own thoughts and have an opinion on this issue , however, certainly mind is not the absolute , and that which exists beyond it , which is thus not understood by the same definition, can't be detected by it. Thus, for objective reality there is always mind and matter, but for the subjective reality , I can't say. May be "quality", may be not.

1 comment:

Radhika said...

Very keenly read and very well eludicated ...