Perspectives
So, let us take a step backward from this understanding and
I will try to explain the above hypothesis and then my judgments and
reservations for it. Firstly, I would like to introduce the concept of
perspectives for this will help me to define the nature of the aforementioned human experiences. An easy example
would be in a case of if I see a person running, my perspective of the person
might be that he/she is in a hurry. However, another person viewing this event
may perceive the same event as the person trying to get away from somebody else.
This may not actually be the best example because the truth-value of the event
is based on an artificially constructed event, thus it is possible to find out
the reason for the person running (by asking the person why he/she is running).
A better example would be in the encoding of events in
languages. In English, it is a salient structure of the language to encode the
Agent of an action in one’s utterance. For example, in ‘Tom broke the window’,
Tom would be the Agent of the action of ‘breaking’. However, in some languages
such as Japanese, it is unmarked (or more
common) to state the result of the event without the Agent. So, in
Japanese, it would be perfectly fine to say “The window broke”. Both languages
state an actual truth event, the same event even, but encodes different perspectives
of it. These language examples brings forth the point that there could be two
distinct ‘minds’ to process a true
event.
True event
What then is a true event? A true event, like the above
example, is an occurrence in the realm
of existence; an occurrence that is irrefutable to its essence and which encompasses every domains and perspectives
however one looks at it. For example, if a ‘rock’ in the Physical domain is the
point of focus, every aspect of the rock is a true event. That includes the
Time domain, where you view it from the point of its past to its future as it
slowly erodes. It includes the Electromagnetic domain and the Light domain. It
includes the Thought domain which is the overlying domain for Language. It
includes all the conceivable domain we can think of when we examine the rock
but it also includes domains which is true in which we just do not know how to
see from that viewpoint. The reason we cannot understand an inconceivable domain is
due to fundamental elements or properties in the nature of the foreign domain
which makes it ‘true’ but because you do not know, are not imbued with the key
to perceive it or you do not place enough importance towards it, you cannot
‘see’ it or ‘understand’ it. An example would be Cave Crickets which do not have
eyes, thus they are not imbued with the key to perceive the Light domain. Thus,
all these domains are simply perspectives of how to view an absolute event in existence.
What I am propagating here is that Thought is from an inconceivable
foreign domain than the physical one we live in. In fact, we examine our physical world through the
notion of Thought, thus, our physical world is perceived through a Thought
perspective.
Thought Domain
Thought then belongs to one of the inconceivable domains in
a true event. It is inconceivable because as human beings, we are Thought-based
beings which means that our perspectives on everything is through the notion of Thought. How then could you examine the
Thought domain? We can use the example of Linguists in their attempts to
examine a foreign language. As the foreign language may encode anything
including things which may not be encoded in the Linguists own native language,
Linguists are pushed to use indirect methods to probe and discover the meanings
in the new language. They do so by asking universal questions, deconstructing
language to its simplest form or asking how one thing can be categorised into
another. What eventually happens is, we could break the language down to
universal semantic concepts and then recursively use Language or a metalanguage
to understand and explain the foreign Language. In the same light, we can use
Thought to examine Thought by probing at its properties from indirect methods.
This method is not really a perfect methodology to understanding the ‘nature’
of Thought but, it is the best we can do as we are Thought-based beings. Understanding, in human terms, is
Thought.
I will try listing some methods on how to understand this
Thought domain. One way is by probing the Thought domain itself, by trying to
understand how we could understand.
One method is to actually examine our Language. Where when I say Language I
refer not only to verbal language, but to any other forms of communication like
gestures, behaviours, drawings and creations. Language is actually the point in
which the Thought domain crosses into
the Physical domain. Before Language, Thought remains in its ethereal realm,
unable to be expressed. It is through Language, the transitive device of
Thought that enables Thought to be expressed and transmitted to other beings
capable of receiving this information (Thought). Thus, in a way, Thought is
encoded into our Languages and to examine Language, we are examining Thought
itself (although not all of it). Another method we could try to examine Thought
is by examining its corresponding Biological grounding in the human species. We
all know that Thought is imbued in each and every human being independently and
this means that there is some form of connection with our physiological physical
self and the Thought domain, like a satellite antenna receiving signal from the
air. Many proposed that our brain holds the key to this Thought domain and thus
researches are focused on this particular organ in order to understand the
realm of Thought. Others try to attribute it to particular genes which holds
the key to Thought. Whatever it is, we still do not know how Thought is
biologically grounded, fundamentally, in our beings and the search is thus on
to find this elusive key.
Emotive domain
The other human experience pointed out in the opening lines
of this essay is emotions. I singled out this domain with the Thought domain
because both are in their own way inherent in the human self. In this light, I
think it is fair to say that emotions belong to an altogether separate domain
from the Physical and the Thought domain. The Emotive domain, like the other
two domains, is universal in its nature; enabling any entity predisposed with
the ability to tap into the domain to perceive it. It appears to be inherent in
humans and animals because they both are able to feel and express it into the
physical world. However, unlike the Physical domain, the Emotive domain remains
unobservable in a physical form. It is different from Thought because Thought,
through language or other forms of communication, is transmittable. Emotions on
the other hand cannot be ‘understood’ except with the
self-experience of the emotion itself. That means that if a person is to
explain the term sadness to a person who have not yet experienced sadness, that
person can go on and on to try to explain this emotion but the other person
will never be able to ‘understand’ what sadness really mean. Interestingly, the
Emotive domain is a domain where humans do not have the ability to manipulate.
As humans are Thought-based beings, we instead manipulate thoughts to
indirectly incite the Emotive domain or exert a force to it. We use Thought to
describe emotions and thus, sometimes, our explanations of our feelings does
not do justice to the feelings we are actually exeriencing. We can also use a
cloak of Thoughts to hide or cloak our emotions from the Physical domain by
spinning stories about what we are actually feeling and telling people we are
feeling something that we actually are not.
Some people say that females are more in touch with their
emotions than men which is an interesting notion to look into. If females
really are more in touch with the Emotive domain, how will or will it then
affect the processing of the other domains? In another view, biologists also
posit that our chemical hormones play a large part in us experiencing these
emotions. This could possibly mean that the Emotive domain is a part of the
Physical domain whereby the changes or introduction of chemical compounds in
our body simply results in the difference in emotions we have. The changes in
our body composition thus then exerts a force onto our Thought domain, causing
us to perceive these different
“emotions”.
There are other domains, of course that I can further
elaborate on such as perhaps the Temperature domain or Light domain, both of
which are inherent in the human being. However, these other domains appear to
be strongly associated and affected by the Physical domain. There are many
researches which were done to uncover these domains and more often than not,
these studies fall under the category of Physics. To keep the essay short, I
will not be elaborating more on them.
Humans vs non-humans
Understanding that the nature
of the two fundamental human experiences is unlike the plainly observable physical
world allows us to explain the difference between humans and animals. Clearly,
humans appear to have free role in manipulating the Thought environment while
animals have difficulty in doing so. Human beings are able to construct
elaborate imaginaries and stories in the Thought plane, manipulate it and then
use this Thought construction to exert a force to the physical world. This Thought
domain is like an added layer of dimension like Time and where the two domains
touches, enables human to construct unnatural and surreal constructions in the
physical world. Examples of the kinds of force which can be asserted into this
world is breath-taking. Just look at the skyscrapers, space shuttles and even
the handphone in this world. Formerly, these things were conceptualised in the
Thought plane and then abstractly manipulated in the mind of someone (or minds
of a group of people, due to the transitive property of Thought) and then
afflicted into the physical world where the Thought could then become ‘real’ or
‘true’ in the physical sense. The ability to manipulate this layer of the Thought
domain enables us to reign supreme over the other species in the planet by
exerting a force which cannot be matched by rudimentary physical
existentialism.
But animals do to a certain degree experience and at least
perceive this Thought domain. Countless of studies were done in which animals
like chimpanzees do exhibit a form of culture and ability to use abstract
Thought to manipulate the physical environment. They can produce rudimentary
tools, learn a limited language to communicate but that appears to be the
extent of their encounter with the Thought domain. It is so limited that it
appears as if they are unable to consciously manipulate it.
One example from the initial observation by Jane Goodall’s
landmark study of apes was that apes appear to be unable to hide their
emotions. A chimpanzee was observed to attempt to hide a bunch of bananas from
its group but was so overcome with its gleeful emotion that it started to
unwillingly attract the attention of the others to its mischievous ‘attempt’.
This shows that animals, do not have the Thought-manipulative capabilities to
cloak their emotions well.
The Key
So, what enables us to experience this Thought which animals
just cannot grasp in a similar manner? I don’t know and in fact there is no
answer up till now, or we would have been able to make animals ‘civilised’ by
now. Anthropologists have tried working through the history of mankind and
tried determining the exact moment when Homo Sapiens, the anatomically thinking
modern man, existed. Even before our so-called species existed, there are in
fact different types of species which resembled the Homo Sapiens. For example, Homo
Habilis, the ‘handy man’ who are said to be the ancestors of our species. They
almost resemble humans but had longer arms and larger craniums like primates.
But they could manipulate tools and there existed some form of culture or simple
manipulation of thought. Yet, even after existing for thousands and thousands of
years before the Homo Sapiens, it was not possible for the Homo Habilis to
improve on their manipulation of this Thought domain, as reflected by their
stagnant primitive stone technology. This contrasts with the Homo Sapiens
species which, upon their first existence about 160 000 years ago, was
able to continuously improve their manipulation of their environment rapidly
and exponentially such that it would have been possible for a new technology
inconceivable 50 years ago, to be developed within that frame of time. Even a
separate Human species called the Neanderthals failed to reach the threshold of
the Homo Sapiens ability to manipulate the Thought domain and their inability
may have resulted in their well-documented extinction with the coming of the
first Homo Sapiens, probably in the hands of the new species itself. Scientists
working on the phenomena of mankind’s rapid history pointed out to a temporally
distinct moment in world’s history that had led a particular species to
suddenly be more advanced than all the other species and enable that species to
create ‘culture’. Some call that first man Prometheus. Some call him Adam.
Whatever that happened altered the course of the physical domain and all the
other species.
Thus, now we are in the stage of finding this elusive key
which explains our ability to manipulate the Thought domain. What is this key?
Is it in a freak combination of genes? If this is the case, we should
continuously and rigorously find for this specific ‘Master’ gene. Or perhaps it
remains in the Thought domain itself, which means finding it will be even
harder because its existence (shape, substance, essence etc) is altogether
unknown. Finding this key would enable us to pass on this ability to all the
other species and enable them to develop culture and manipulate the Thought
environment just like we do. There is this story in a religion that told that towards the end
of the World, a large indicator of the coming Armageddon would be the emergence
of talking animals. In this regard, perhaps mankind might have found the key to
the ability to manipulate Thought.
The Mythological
Perspective of the Human Experience
From this initial hypothesis of Thought as a separate
domain, I would finally be able to explain the topic of my essay ‘The
mythological perspective of the human experience’. Everything, and I mean everything can be, and
should be able to be, explained by the ‘mythological perspective.’ The
mythological experience is human’s experience of the Thought domain; how we
manipulate it and how we understand the world through it. I was reading this
book called Sapiens: A brief history of humankind by Yuval Noah Harari and the
ideas broached by this book had really intrigued me. In Chapter 2, Harari propagated
the notion of myths as a defining feature of mankind. It is myths that we based
our every perception, logic and culture on. It is myths that explains
everything that we ‘know’. From this standpoint, we can use myths to explain
everything that is relativistic and human culture related.
The Individual
Take the example of the individual. How is one human being
different from another human being? We can say it is his identity that differentiates him. But what then, is his identity?
The broad answer is: his identity is his myth.
His identity is the stories of and about
him. From the point of his birth, stories spread of his existence all the
way until even after the moment he dies. How was he like? What did he do? As a
child, as he grows up, he starts doing things; transmitting his Thoughts to
people, invoking emotions in people and crucially, exerting a force into the
physical world. His outwards manipulation of the physical domain enabled him to
be noticed and immortalised as the identity that he is, and he marks himself in the Thought domain
of others. Long after he is gone, if his mark on the physical, emotive and
especially thought world lives on, his myth will continue to survive.
A name
A person’s name is a marker of an identity. A name is a
mental construct. It is not real in the physical domain but it is very real in
the thought domain, at least to its inheritor and its name giver. As a person
starts to do things, the person starts to create stories and attributes it to
this name. In this respect, it is also possible to change one’s name, and in
doing so, lose the myths surrounding this name. That is the reason why some people
might wish to change one’s name; to lose a particular negative myth and to
render that myth obsolete.
In fact, names could even possibly exert a great force in
the physical domain such as to even be able to determine the future success of the
inheritor. That is the reason why name givers may go to great lengths to choose
a suitable name for their name receiver, like naming them after a famous person
like Alexander or a Biblical name like Abraham, in hopes that the person could
create a myth as great as their successful namesakes. Gal Goddot (lit. meaning riverbank waves), the actress who played
Wonder Woman, was named as such by her parents in their hopes that she would be
a star. Taylor Swift, such a catchy name as it is, was also named for exactly
the same reason.
Inherited myths
The power that goes with naming actually does imply that an
identity can also inherit a past myth.
This is reflected in the social constructions
of perfectivity or what it means to be perfect in the eyes of this world. This
includes concepts such as the ideal beauty and even racial prejudices. If a
person is born with certain physical traits that reflects the ongoing myths of
perfectivity of the day, people will attribute these ‘positive’ myths onto this
person even without the person doing anything yet. Unfortunately, the obverse
is true. These ongoing myths, physically marked by one’s genetic attributes, marks
the person with ‘negative’ myths and thus results in things such as racial
prejudices, occupational prejudices or even height prejudices to be inflicted
onto the marked person.
To reiterate a good point, a myth is not a lie, but it is a
story which people believe in. A lie
is a myth which people do not believe in, so in its essence it does not
constitute a solid construction in the Thought domain until it is able to
convince another being about its existence. In this matter, it is dangerous for
negative myths to continue to pervade because it can physically alter a person
or society. In a book titled The Myth of the Lazy Native by Syed Hussein Alatas
on prejudices based on mistaken facts on the Malay people resulted in this race
of natives to embrace this negative notion and even propagate this myths on their own volition, almost like a
symbol of pride and marker for their racial identity. A myth, or the conscious
manipulation of another person’s Thought domain, is really not something to be
taken lightly about.
A Company
Above the individual, we can have the myth of the Company. A
company is a social construction, an ingenuity, really, of humanity which
allows an entirely physically non-existent entity to exist only in the Thought
domain of people. Take for example the Coca-Cola company. We can say that the Coca-cola
company consists of its thousands of workers, its factories and its products.
However, take away any of these three elements and the Coca-Cola Company can
still exist. The Coca-cola Company thus takes on a true identity in at least in
the Thought domain without having the need to have a physical marker (although
it would help if it did).
A Religion
In fact, any social ‘beliefs’ can be explained through the
point of view of the mythological perspective. The way the hypothesis has been
growing, it is almost easy to simply group Religion as simply one of myths
created by mankind. Perhaps it is
created by great story-tellers of yore, but in my belief, Religion holds the
answer to the true events of existence thus it cannot be entirely created and
manipulated in the minds of a person. The Bible was created in a way that God inspires men to write it as it is. The
Quran states that God reveals the
content of the Quran exactly as He intended it to be revealed to a Prophet
messenger. Both events accounts for an All-Encompassing Being to be able to
influence the Thought domain of men. In fact, the notion of myths may even be
God’s best way of communicating directly to humankind. As we know, we just do not know the essence of or how the Thought
domain really is so we cannot say it is simply a human constructed myth or
otherwise. But, it is plausible.
A Relationship
In relationships, one creates myths with another being also
predisposed with the same potential to create their own myths. This means that
the two beings will have created a new identity that marks the two being as ‘together’,
another layer of myth. What holds this relationship together could possibly be shared
myths of experiences, the ability to touch each other’s Emotive domain or even
the myth of responsibilities towards one’s biological children.
A Purpose to Life
Existentialism is probably one of the most debated about
topic in every one’s mind. What is the purpose of life? Why are we alive? The
following explanation is only an elaboration derived from the mythological
perspective concept which remains largely unresolved until there are advancements
on what we know of the Thought domain. Essentially, we are Thought-based
beings, thus in its derivative logic, we are living in the Thought environment.
Our purpose in life has got something to do with the Thought domain, be it
immortalising ourselves there or something along this line. As long as our Thought
Self exist and is tied to our Physical Self, we are said to be ‘alive’. But
what then happens when our Physical shell dies? Will our Thought Self disappear
too? From then it would simply be speculation, we can never know unless we
actually die, find something in the Thought domain that tells us something about
death or find something in Religion that may tell us something which is true
about death.
Conclusion
I can go on and on talking about just about anything based
on this perspective but I believe I have covered the essentials for a
fundamental cornerstone on the “Mythological
Perspective on the human experience”. In the entirety of this essay, I have
first broached on the difference between the different domains by explaining
about perspectives. In the second part of my essay, I then elaborated on the
Thought domain and finally I used this elaboration to explain the Mythological
perspective on our everyday life in which I gave examples to further this perspective.
There are perhaps holes in this concept or many other things I could have
talked about on, thus I welcome your telling criticism. After all, we all stand
to gain with the better understanding of this myth.
No comments:
Post a Comment