Author: Stéphane

Perception

Actually, what is perception?
Well, that seems to be quite easy: to see, to hear, to smell, to taste an to feel. Perceptions of the five sensory organs.
Ok.

But what about the thoughts? Do I perceive them, or are they simply generated in my mind?
Well, perhaps a little bit of both… or not?

What is intuition, then? An unknown circuit of nerves, working mechanically, and allowing me for perceiving its result? But how, and by which means do I perceive it? With my mind? Though my mind isn’t a sensory organ…

And what about the gut instinct? Which sensory organ can it be attributed to?

What is a flash of inspiration, an idea? Generated in my mind by random nerve stimuli? Without any relation to perception as such?

What about pain, that can’t be felt on a physical layer any more – the anguish of mind… only thoughts? No perception? Pretending to be real, but nothing more than “imagination”?

What about the interior guidance, or afflatus? Isn’t there something, that is perceived? Pure imagination should result rather seldom, or at the most in every second case in a positive outcome, and only by chance… mathematically seen, of course…

How, and where to range impulses at all? Play instinct, zest for action, distrust, sympathy and antipathy, spontaneity… somehow, and somewhere, I am perceiving that, definitely on a physical layer as well, or not? Which senses does it correspond to?

Most of all: who’s finally perceiving? Ever just my mind? Consciousness? The soul? Is the physical body really the perceptive one, or rather the mediating instrument, and only suitable for a portion of the perceptible spectrum?

The centre

First me, and thereafter still only me, is egoism.

First the others, and thereafter still only the others, is altruism.

First the others, and thereafter me, reveals only not being able to appreciate oneself.

First me, and thereafter the others, is the only wise, and golden centre at the same time, since any kind of extension, that shall be simultaneously stable and constructive, can only take course from the inside to the outside.

Polymaths

From where came all those polymaths of our history?

The attribute “polymath” is associated to some known figures of our historiography, in fact to those, which studied several, individual sciences, or were quite skillful at those. Either they were noble and had simply the time and the money to educate themselves so largely, or they were gainfully employed with one of those special fields, and educated themselves moreover in the others. But what was the reason for that? For the nobles it may be explained by a kind of intellectual boredom, but for the employed colleagues this argument is not really fitting any more. But there is a specific pattern appearing, when you look a little bit closer…

The combination of natural sciences, as mathematics and physics, in relation to philosophy, frequently extended by astrology/astronomy (this has formerly not been separated so strictly), and sometimes also with theology, or medical science, appears quite often. In particular cases a special field as optics, astrophysics, naturalist, or something similar may rise up, but somehow they are just branches of the categories mentioned previously. This phenomenon persists approximately up to the 17th century, and with the entry of the modern natural sciences the age of the polymaths seem to end abruptly.

But how far is this phenomenon going back? The first, and for sure most known polymaths are coming from the ancient world, at the Greek. What a surprise! Socrates himself is the one not only creating the model of an ideal state in his dialogues, but also drawing a perfectly educated philosopher, that shall lead – in one person, or as several ones – this state. How does this education now look like?

Before being able to approach the philosophy as a practiced discipline, it is after Socrates first necessary to study seriously the following four scientific disciplines in the mentioned sequence: geometry, arithmetic, harmonic science, and astrology. Once those four disciplines have been practiced successfully for several years, one is coming in the position to be able to study philosophy in its purest form. Since only now the mind of the student is prepared well enough to be able to separate the invariable from the variable, and thus to explore the beauty itself as such.

Geometry, arithmetics, and harmonic science cover already a major part of the contemporary mathematics. Astrology and astronomy tells its own tale. Physics was seen as a branch of philosophy. Being finally on the way as philosopher, a concrete subject matter wants to be elected and explored in a philosophical way. It seems that many a savant took this educational way really to heart.

Rules

The one demanding to follow rules, excluding himself from it, communicates an ambivalent message, that is confusing for the short term, but removing the ground of orientation for the long term.

Furthermore the community consisting of demander and auditorium is ranked in one part of such having to follow rules (auditorium), and another part of such standing above the rules (demander).

The behavior of the demander ranks and polarizes moreover implicitly in a valuable group of such having the permission to demand, and a less valuable group of such having in contrast to the previous group to obey, being debased and discriminated against the previous group.

The one demanding to follow rules makes himself on its own terms also an authority and adopts automatically, meaning without any further assistance, being an ideal that is directly demonstrated to the auditorium.

So the one wanting to be taken seriously without the subtle provocation of ambivalent messages should take care of consistency in his behavior. Being not able to do so means you should not demand something…

Might II

Nobody disposes might, and controlling it is less than ever possible!

We only get the permission to start up and to guide force of a certain magnitude, linked to the causality of the consequences that we have to accept subsequently to the guidance of a specific force, and to enjoy the feedback, in the case that it is of beneficial nature, or to suffer from it, in the case that it is of a wearing nature.

This reaction allows for learning the guidance of a force, under the inclusion to slip up from time to time. That has nothing to do with control.

Might I

Might corrupts. Always.

Nothing is more dangerous, and more fallacious than might, since it can’t be recuperated at all, it is always given voluntarily. There may be instruments, techniques, and strategies to facilitate, or to accelerate the clearance of might, but it will always remain to be a voluntary withdrawal.

Once tasted the tempting and sweet flavor of might, you want more, and you will always aim to accumulate more, still more, on and on, entirely limitless and without foothold, since it will never be enough. This game is promoted by the fact, that there is really no direct limit in expanding might. The more clearance, the more you accumulate. But where the limit is missing, the point, where the greatness of might overruns the capacity of the ego will necessarily appear at any time, and exactly at that point the ego will underlie, since the latter has limits! The risk of this game of accumulation, leading to the unavoidable downfall, resides exactly at that point, where this limit is reached.

It is fallacious for one gambling with might, having neither respect, nor vision, and becoming himself very quickly the cue ball of might. Faster than desired, faster than it could be recognized, and by far more powerful than it could be handled or controlled. Sliding from an active to a reactive role, where it becomes almost impossible to escape from.

Therefore the only proper way to deal with might is to refuse it generally, from the first, and consequently. Always.

Shady sides

Shady sides may be powerful and painful, but they are only dangerous for the case, that they are dissimulated or suppressed.

Weaknesses of character appear in contrast similar to a subtle, creeping poison, and can’t be dissimulated or suppressed at all. Though the danger here is the ignorance of the tolerance limit of individuals, for which the impact of the poison will arise at an unknown and unpredictable point in time to unfold abruptly its full potential.