“A fact is not the same as a truth, a fact is whatever is agreed upon, therefore a fact is limited acceptance through agreement; a truth is true even if no one agrees, a fact can be based solely upon opinion, which means it may not be the truth but your own or mass supposition.
People then take facts as truth without investigation, which often forms false beliefs. People do not always consciously recognize their beliefs, instead their invested beliefs tell them what to see, and what they allow themselves to see cannot easily challenge those invested views, this is the difference between clarity and confusion”
Sill spent the morning with Tony who ran the records department, Tony was very helpful, and he’d provided Sill with a list of all the professors working at the university in the early 70’s. All of them were now retired or dead. He also provided him with a list of graduate students who were working as assisting professors, and two of those people still worked at the university. The first was Mrs. Crank who taught the liberal arts, the humanities, the fine arts, the social sciences and theology, Sill knew he was looking for a man, so she was out, the second was Mr. Jones a professor of philosophy, Sill thought he was worth further investigation.
Tony drew Sill a little map showing him how to get to professor Jones’s lecture which was to begin in half an hour. Sill thought to talk with him after the lecture was finished.
Professor Jones was working in his office on his philosophy book, a task he’d been toying with for twenty years. ‘What we cannot perceive is often the dominant aspect of our reality, we exist oblivious to the obvious, while we struggle mystified at the results that such a failure to perceive generates. For example, in the old world, what now would be considered an outlaw, a man defending the oppressed, was a great man, but those times have long past. When it’s perceived all laws are created by criminals to oppress the virtuous, an outlaw is understood, or perceived in reality. The perception of the term outlaw was transformed upon the defeat of the autonomy of all, and so outlaw became the outcast of old, but within hierarchy, all souls are outcasts.
This truth is hidden when a soul is born within hierarchies, just as an idiot has no power to perceive their own failings, unable to recognize their own intellectual weakness.’
The professor of philosophy pondered these thoughts, the objective of his book was to understand what a soul was, he was determined to make the inexplicable, explicable. The alarm on his phone went off, it was time for him to go to his lecture.
As he walked to his class he pondered the nature of the mind, the power and force of emotions, the dominance of belief over reason, he considered the anima of the mind and the persona of perception, all these things were a part of the soul.
He decided to pose the question to his students, as a tool to teaching them reasoning, although reasoning wasn’t part of his remit in teaching, in fact quite the opposite, but as he had grown older and himself studied reasoning independently, he had realised reasoning was paramount to all study for the determination of sound conclusions.
It was his first lecture of a new school year at the university; a sea of fresh faces filled the lecture theater, all eager to learn.
When he arrived he walked straight to the front of the theater and stood upon the podium. He was wearing an expensive tailored suit, his shoes shone, his expression was earnest.
“Good morning. As you’ll already know I’m Professor Jones and this is Philosophy. If you’re in the wrong auditorium now is the time to leave.” He said this in a strong clear voice, a chorus of good mornings filled the hall in response.
“The first thing to master before you can determine philosophically is reason. Although you may not find that expressed in text books, it is none the less true. If you fail to master the skill to reason to a true conclusion, you will not be a philosopher, or understand philosophy. You’ll be an academic who is constrained in thought within the narrow tracks of long dead Greek philosophers.
To that end I’ll now pose a question.
‘What is the soul?’” He asked the class.
The question was met with a wall of silence.
“To determine any question the first thing to consider is the antecedent circumstances that expose the root of the question.
All empathic beings have a soul, yet the soul appears inexplicable.
Why would I say empathy is evidence of a soul?” He asked.
“Empathy is Identifying oneself completely with another, sometimes even to the point of responding physically, this demonstrates symbiosis of consciousness, such as for example, the reciprocal but complimentary relationship between an infant and its mother.
Still no one made a sound. “What then is the source of the soul? Because the source betrays the reason for the symbiotic nature of empathic consciousness ” He asked.
A timid voice said. “God.”
“God. Is there any evidence to support that proposition?” He asked.
Again he was met with a wall of silence.
“There’s no evidence I’m aware of, for an entity of creation. The question then is, what ‘is’ there evidence for?” He probed the audience.
“Isn’t the evidence for a God entity the creation itself?” The timid voice asked.
“That’d be a logical fallacy, a circular fallacy: A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true.
God exists because creation exists, creation exists because God exists. This is not proof it’s unreasoned conclusion drawn from a logical fallacy.
Bertrand Russell observed:
“The method of ‘postulating’ what we want has many advantages; they’re the same as the advantages of theft over honest toil”
Let us then examine creation, what is creation?” He asked the class.
“It’s substance, matter, space, time and form.” A young man near the back replied.
“That’s again a logical fallacy, a subverted support fallacy. The phenomenon being explained doesn’t exist, when examined at the microscopic, the quantum what do they find? The intangible.” He replied.
“But I can touch, move, see creation, it is real.” The young man argued.
“What you’re actually experiencing isn’t creation in the form you describe, but the perceptions of creation. In truth creation is all in the mind.
Take ‘time’ for example, it’s a construct, we only experience a single eternal moment, time in the linear form is only what we perceive, so time is simply a construct of our limited perceptions.
If you accept that at the very root of matter nothing tangible exists we must consider what exists that is also not tangible. Thought itself is the intangible form, this would then follow that the root of creation is thought.” He explained
Again silence reigned.
“OK, this generates the next question, what’s perception?” He asked the class.
“The faculty of perceiving by means of the senses or of the mind.” A voice from the front replied.
“Googling the definition on your smart phone.” Smiled the professor.
“Yes. We perceive this shared experience but how?” He asked.
“Through our brain.” A voice replied.
“That’s a logical fallacy. Wrong Direction fallacy: the direction between cause and effect is reversed.” He replied.
“But thought originates from the brain.” The voice persisted.
“If the creation is only the experience of a shared perception, the brain itself is nothing but a perception. How then can a perceptual form be the source of the perception?” He asked.
No one spoke.
“There’s only one way to share a single universal perception, and that is to share a single consciousness.
How can a single consciousness be an infinite number of consciousness’s yet remain a single consciousness?” He asked.
No one replied.
“If you look at the perception we all share, you find fundamental patterns, the reason for that is, we follow a form, the form that underpins all, the foundation of everything.
Science examines the interactions of form and attempts to create laws, but science tends to ignore the root of form.
Philosophy is the science that examines the root of form.
Perception is formed of a fractal nature.
A fractal is a complex pattern exhibiting self-similarity in that small details of its structure viewed at any scale repeat elements of the overall pattern.
If we share a single consciousness through a fractal pattern, then each fractal would contain the whole, while simultaneously being within the whole.
Clearly we have anima, which is the recursive mind, as we each may observe within ourselves.
The term anima means the inner consciousness that is turned toward the unconscious of the individual, this is substantive; anima is in direct contrast with persona, the constructed fiction of the person, which is the mask or façade presented to satisfy the demands of the situation or the environment perceived externally.
Recursive form. Meaning using a rule or procedure that can be applied repeatedly; means everything we perceive as reality is built from simple rules.
For example, asymmetry. Everything flows in one direction, sound returns to silence, light returns to darkness, this means the mind may never rest, as it would return to nothingness, the recursive loop is perpetual.
Is the soul only consciousness, the recursive mind and the shared perception?” He asked.
“No, we have emotion also.” A young woman replied.
“Very good. What is emotion?” He asked.
“It’s the perturbed or pacified condition of consciousness.” A voice suggested.
“That’s the interaction of emotion and anima, but what’s emotion?” He asked again.
“Emotion is the state of agitation or tranquility that arises subjectively rather than through conscious effort.” Another voice suggested.
“So emotion is merely the increase or decrease of the agitation of anima, this would be one aspect of emotion, but emotion has far more effect than simple agitation.
Emotions can tear a soul apart. Emotions can drive a soul to extremes of endurance, despair or hatred. Emotions can lift a soul to heights of passion, to depths of self-loathing or total apathy, and much more.
From where does the emotion arise to overwhelm or subdue subjectively upon anima?
That’s of course the large question, so let us attack it in stages.
Which is the greater, anima or emotion?” The professor probed.
“Mind must be greater as emotion only disturbs the mind.” A voice from the audience replied.
“In my view this is a logical fallacy, generated from philosophers of the ancient world, misleading evidence by citation would give credence to that perspective, just as the entire pseudoscience of psychiatry is built upon that same logical fallacy, its structure formed upon fictional evidence that is used to support ever more fictional evidence through the citation of the authority of previous citations based on conjecture. However, is that woozle perspective actually valid?” He asked.
“What’s a woozle?” Someone asked.
“The Woozle effect, also known as evidence by citation, occurs when frequent citation of previous publications that lack evidence misleads individuals, groups, and the public into thinking or believing there is evidence, and non-facts become urban myths and factoids.
Are we emotional consciousness or rational consciousness?
Well of course we’re both.
Which is dominant?
Many philosophers have argued the rational the greater. To those philosophers I’d disagree.
If we visualize anima as a fluid, and emotion as a colour, then mind would be the dominant, and this would on the surface appear to be the rational order, but clearly mind is not dominant over emotion innately. Emotions can easily overwhelm rational actions. So therefore the fluid must be emotion and the colour anima.
The choice of a colour is determined from a belief set, if you change your beliefs, then the colour anima turns the fluid of emotion will also change. For example, if I hold a belief I’m superior to women, how I react emotionally towards interactions with women would be very different to a belief where women were my equals or even my superiors.
We exist within a fluid emotional state perpetually; it’s this metaphorical fluid that forms the body of the soul. We’re emotional beings first and foremost, we’re emotional at every moment, that emotion maybe a calm, tranquil emotional state, never the less it’s still emotional.” The professor argued.
Sill knew he’d found his man. No one could explain reality just as Isambard unless they had known Isambard he thought.
Click Here for: Chapter Seventeen
If you’d like to contribute to the further development of this book, please use the information below, thank you.