Does the apparatus, the brain, the senses with which we see the real object, matter more than the object, even if we see only part of the object or part of the phenomenon of the object?
I think we should assume the object our senses see or feel is real and then concentrate on how we can more clearly see the real object, rather than becoming trapped in the rabbit hole of phenomenology. Paying more attention to simple common sense, or inventing scientific instruments to extend our senses, seems to be a general way to see more clearly.
Definitions, words, numbers have become more important than the object in religion, philosophy and science. Going back to the living object means seeing the object as sacred, real, material and supermaterial, the zenith of which is Godhood, the Supreme Object.
One hint that we are in the rabbit hole is seen in over-complexity and incomprehensibility, no matter how learned or clever we are----it's a game of lost energy. If it's beautiful and simple and affirms other perspectives on it, we are probably on the right track to defining reality.
I think we should assume the object our senses see or feel is real and then concentrate on how we can more clearly see the real object, rather than becoming trapped in the rabbit hole of phenomenology. Paying more attention to simple common sense, or inventing scientific instruments to extend our senses, seems to be a general way to see more clearly.
Definitions, words, numbers have become more important than the object in religion, philosophy and science. Going back to the living object means seeing the object as sacred, real, material and supermaterial, the zenith of which is Godhood, the Supreme Object.
One hint that we are in the rabbit hole is seen in over-complexity and incomprehensibility, no matter how learned or clever we are----it's a game of lost energy. If it's beautiful and simple and affirms other perspectives on it, we are probably on the right track to defining reality.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment