A Fellow Lighter

Scientific Knowledge As An Extension Of Common Thought The knowledge of the world gained via common thought is rather indefinite, inaccurate and unsystematic. It is a sufficient guide for common life, but its deficiencies may be made apparent. S/he who wishes to know matter and mind better cannot afford to neglect the sciences. Now, though it is important to observe that when the common man grows scientific great changes take place in his knowledge of things, it is, however, equally important to acknowledge that his way of of looking at the mind and the world remains generally much what it was. Let us suppose that the man in question takes up the study of botany. Need s/he do anything contrary from what is merely less systematically done by every common man who interests oneself in plants? There in the red material world before the scientific man are the same plants that s/he had observed somewhat imperfectly before. S/he must now collect the information more systematically and must arrange it more critically. But the task is not so much to do something different, but it is rather to do the same thing much better. The same is evidently true with other various sciences. Some men have far more accurate informed regarding rocks; animals; the functions of the bodily organs; the development of a given form of society, and other things of the sort. Whilst other men have little and yet it is usually not difficult for the man who is an expert to make the common man, who knows little, understand at least the specifics of what s/he is talking about. The scientific man is busying oneself with things – the same things that may interest a plain man – of which the common man knows something about. The scientific man has collected information touching their properties, their changes, their relationships. But to the man of science, as with the less scientific neighbor, they are the same things they always were – things that were known from the days of childhood. Perhaps it will be admitted that this is true with such sciences as the ones mentioned previously, but doubted whether it is true of all sciences. For instance, to the common man, the world of material things consists of things that can be seen and touched. Many of these things seem to fill space continuously. They may be divided, but the parts into which they may be divided are conceived as fragments of the things, and as of the same nature as the whole, of which they are parts. However, the chemist and the physicist tell us that these same extended things are not really continuous as they seem to be, but consist of swarms rather of imperceptible atoms in rapid motion at considerable distances from one another in space, an grouped in various ways. So what has now become of the world of realities to which the common man pinned one's faith in? It has come to be looked upon as a world of appearances, of phenomana, of manifestations under which the real things themselves are imperceptible. Is this a new world of things in which the plain man finds oneself when venturing into the science of real but imperceptible things? [To be continued]

The Need For a Philosophical Foundation Imagine venturing into the ocean without a compass or map. Philosophical inquiry without a foundation can be like this disorienting experience. Of course, philosophical foundations themselves can be debated and challenged. But having a foundation, even a provisional one, is essential for rigorous and systematic philosophical inquiry. Without a foundation, philosophical inquiry can become unmoored and adrift, leading to inconclusive or arbitrary conclusions. Think of it like building a house. You wouldn't start building without a solid foundation, or your house would crumble. Similarly, a strong foundation in philosophy provides a stable base for exploring complex ideas and developing knowledge. Thus, a foundation for philosophical inquiry is crucial for several reasons. It provides a framework for asking questions, evaluating evidence, and constructing arguments. Common Ground: A foundation provides a common ground for philosophers to engage in debate and build upon each other's work. It establishes basic principles or assumptions that everyone can (at least initially) agree on. Evaluating Arguments: The foundation sets benchmarks for assessing the quality of philosophical arguments. It helps identify strong reasoning, fallacies, and relevant evidence. Guiding the Inquiry: The foundation helps philosophers determine which questions are worth pursuing and which ones are tangential or irrelevant. It keeps the inquiry focused and avoids meandering down unproductive paths.

Speculative Thinking As A Foundation For Philosophical Inquiry Speculative Thinking refers to a type of thought process that considers various possibilities that, unlike common thought, are not based on experiential knowledge. It includes counterfactual thinking, prefactual thinking, and other types. But it is also different from counterintuitive thinking which essentially challenges the experiential framework of common thought. The function of Speculative Thinking is essentially to 'feel in the gaps' using imagination rather than direct contradiction of common knowledge. For instance, panpsychism. Early philosophers likely noticed the difference between conscious beings and inert matter. This sparked questions about the nature of consciousness and its relationship to the physical world. Since consciousness is subjective and not directly observable in others, early philosophers might have used their own experience to infer a more universal property of existence. This is where speculation comes in – they ventured beyond the directly observable to propose a possible explanation for consciousness. Panpsychism suggests that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe, present even in elementary particles. It doesn't directly build on common sense or challenge it; it proposes a radically new property that we can't directly experience or disprove. Here's another reason why speculative thinking is completely different from counterintuitive thinking. Let us propose the phenomenon of sleep as a counter argument for panpsychism. It is known and expected from common thought that in slumber, one is virtually unaware of their surroundings if not completely unaware. So, then, if what panpsychism is suggesting is true and consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe then wouldn't this property render us the ability to remain environmentally aware while asleep? Not only does this counter argument poses a challenge for panpsychism but it also suggests it to be a form of counterintuitive thinking since it itself seems to be directly challenge the mature man's common thought of consciousness – that only biotic matter is capable of it. However, some panpsychists do propose that consciousness exists in varying degrees. Perhaps elementary particles have a very basic kind of consciousness that doesn't translate to awareness of surroundings. This would explain sleep states in humans while allowing for a form of panpsychism. Therefore, panpsychism remains a product of speculative thought because the presence of consciousness in matter, as proposed by the theory, is a concept that currently cannot be definitively proven or disproven through scientific means. It delves into the nature of consciousness itself, which is a complex phenomenon that science is still working to understand. So, while speculative thinking can borrow from common thought and counterintuitive thinking, it's not necessarily rooted in either. It can take common experiences and push them beyond their usual bounds. For instance, we commonly experience consciousness, and panpsychism extrapolates from that to propose consciousness in everything. It can also challenge common sense, but not always in a direct way. For example, the multiverse doesn't directly contradict our experience, but it proposes a reality far stranger than what we take for granted. Speculation itself often ventures into the counterintuitive, but that's not its defining feature. It's more about the introduction of entirely new ideas that aren't directly grounded in common experience or its challenges. The line can be blurry. Some might argue that even the multiverse, despite its strangeness, relies on our concept of a universe to propose its existence. Here, the speculative element lies in proposing the existence of many, not just one more. In summary, speculative thinking is characterized by several key features: Imagination: Speculative thinking involves the use of imagination to envision possibilities beyond what is currently known or proven. Exploration: It encourages individuals to explore different perspectives, scenarios, and outcomes that may not be immediately apparent. Creativity: Speculative thinking often involves creative thinking processes such as brainstorming, lateral thinking, and problem-solving. Open-mindedness: It requires individuals to be open to new ideas, perspectives, and ways of thinking. Risk-taking: Speculative thinking involves taking risks by considering ideas that may be unconventional or unproven.

Counterintuitive Thinking As The Foundation For Philosophical Inquiry Counterintuitive thinking may be viewed as the polar alternative for common thought. Where common thought reflects a collective (shared) intuitive process of making sense of the world, which is made evident through mental content that is generated as well as demonstrated in semantics; counterintuitive thinking demonstrates a, sort of, deliberate violation of the intuitive expectations of one's experiential framework. For example, the statement, "My dog responds in English when I call it." is a violation of the common experiential knowledge about dogs. To accept that such a dog really exists, without having witnessed it in person, would be forcing oneself to mentally hold together two incompatible ideas. This is like holding together two magnets of the same charge in your mind. The result is a constant slipping and flipping of resistance from both parts. Because the thought pattern of 'dog' is firmly established in the experiential framework of a mature mind as a non-speaking animal, one might search for alternative explanations for the report of a 'talking dog'. Following are some of the options: The core concept has been mislabeled: it is not an actual dog. The core concept is correct, but the context isn't: the talking from elsewhere. The event is being reported as a counterfactual: a 'what-if' scenario, such as a fairy tale. Someone is trying to deceive you: by convincing you that such a thing as a talking dog actually exists. The experiential framework has to be updated: some, or perhaps just one, dog can speak, in English for that matter. There is a sixth option. One can choose to retain the mystery of the talking dog by not explaining the conflict, but by making an attempt to accommodate or justify the new information within the contextual framework of what you already know. For example: telepathy, whereby the communication between the dog and the human is conducted telepathically; or the supernatural, whereby the dog could be possessed by an English speaking entity; or magic, whereby the dog has been enabled by witchcraft to speak. All these examples demonstrate counterintuitive thinking, a case in which a mature individual purposefully goes against one's very own experiential framework of his thought patterns in order to consider the possibility of an anomaly. Counterintuitive thinking challenges established norms by presenting unconventional, seemingly counter-productive, or even paradoxical solutions that often defy initial expectations or intuition. Now, counterintuitive thinking can be a valuable basis for developing a philosophy because it involves questioning common assumptions and conventional wisdom, and involves seeking fundamental truths even if they seem counterintuitive or go against common knowledge. This approach is exemplified by first principles thinking, which involves breaking down complex problems into their fundamental components, questioning assumptions, and seeking fundamental truths. It encourages flexibility and adaptability in problem-solving, and can lead to breakthroughs in various fields, such as space exploration, renewable energy, healthcare, and transportation, thus clearly demonstrating its work through scientific studies. However, counterintuitive thinking should not be used in isolation, but rather in conjunction with other problem-solving methods, such as analytical thinking and expertise in a specific domain. It is important to recognize that first principles thinking has its limitations, such as potentially leading to a narrow perspective and overlooking the value of existing knowledge and assumptions. Overall, when working on a philosophical theory, counterintuitive thinking encourages making connections between seemingly unrelated concepts. Thus proving to be a valuable tool for sparking new ideas and developing groundbreaking concepts.

@Buck Edwards welcome! And thank you for showing your appreciation. I hope you will be able to enjoy more of what's to come.

Assessment Of Common Thought As The Starting Point For Philosophy Strenghts Having common thought as the starting point of philosophical inquiry allows us to more easily understand the ideas and concepts being discussed. This is because common thought can provide a shared understanding of matters and can allow for more meaningful philosophical inquiry, as everyone has some point of reference to start from. By having common thought as the foundation of philosophical inquiry, we can more thoroughly explore ideas, as well as have a clear understanding of what we are discussing. Common thought also incorporates a wide range of philosophical concepts which include empiricism, relativism and realism. Weaknesses Common experience can be rife with cultural biases, historical inaccuracies, and societal limitations. What's considered "common knowledge" within a group may not reflect reality. This is because common experiences are inherently limited by our individual and collective perceptions. They may not account for unseen phenomena, alternative perspectives, or entirely new ways of understanding the world. Overreliance on common thought can stifle progress. If we solely accept things as they seem revealed through collective experience, we may be less likely to challenge assumptions and explore new ideas.

Common Thought As The Foundation For Philosophical Inquiry And Research The psychologist tells us that it requires quite a course of education to enable us to see things. Not to have vague and unmeaningful sensations, but to see things: Things that are known to be touchable as well as visible, things that are recognized as having size and shape and position in space. The psychologist explains to us that as infants, we are as ignorant of ourselves as we are of things, explaining that in our immature world of unorganized experiences there is no self that is distinguishable from other things, that we may cry vociferously without knowing who is uncomfortable and later stop crying without knowing who has been taken up by nursing arms and experienced an agreeable change. The chaotic little world of the infant is not the world we know – the world of common thought – the world in which we all live and move in maturer years. Nor can we go back to it via the path of memory lane. In fact, it seems as though we have always lived in a world of things – things in space and time – material things. And among these things there is one of peculiar interest, which we have not placed upon a par with the rest: Our own bodies which see, taste, touch and performs in other ways. We cannot remember a time when we did not know that with this body are, somehow, bound up many experiences which interests us acutely. For instance, experiences of pleasure and pain. Moreover, we seem always to have known that certain of the things which surround us rather resemble our own bodies, and are in important particulars to be distinguished from the general mass of things. Thusly we seem to always have been living in a world of things and to have always recognized, in that world, the existence of oneself and of other selves. We think of each of the bodies resembling our own as possessing a mind. May we say that as far back as we can remember, we have thought of ourselves and of other individuals as possessing minds? Hardly. The young child does not does not seem to distinguish between mind and body. However, we must all admit, though it may not be with the child in its early stages of its development, the mature individual does quite consciously recognize that the world in which s/he finds oneself is a world that contains minds as well as bodies. It never occurs to you to doubt that there are bodies. And it never occurs to you to doubt that there are minds. Other individuals act very much as yourself: They walk and they talk, they laugh and they cry, they work and they play, just as you do. In short, they act precisely as though they had minds like yourself. What more natural than to assume that as you yourself give expression, by the actions of your body to the thoughts and emotions your mind, so does your neighbor give expression? We must not allow ourselves to underrate the average man's common thought of either bodies or minds. It seems, upon reflection, a wonderful thing that a few fragmentary sensations should automatically receive an interpretation which conjures up, before the mind, a world of real things. For instance, that little patch of colour sensation, which I experience when I turn my eyes toward the window, introduces me at once to a world of material objects lying in space, clearly defined in magnitude, distance and direction? And that an experience, no more complex, is a key which should unlock for me the secret storehouse of another mind, and lay before me a wealth of thoughts and emotions, not my own? From the poor, bare, meaningless world of the infant intelligence to the rich world of common thought – a world in which real things with their manifold properties, things material and things mental, bear their part – is in deed a long step. And we should never forget that s/he who would strive to gain a better intelligence of matter and of mind, by the aid of philosophical reflection and science, must begin one's labors on this foundation which is common to us all. How else can s/he begin than by accepting, and more critically, examining the world as it seems revealed in the collective experience of our species? ~ G.S. Fullerton

In the spirit of the ancient Athenian marketplace, where ideas clashed and mingled in vibrant discourse, I'm dedicating this journal to my philosophical inquiries and research as well as the refinement of a budding cosmology that I'm developing and have chosen to call Autonoetism. The name inspired by Endel Tulving's "autonoetic consciousness", a mental ability that allows us to travel through time in our minds. I invite open-minded thinkers and scholars to participate in this intellectual exploration, and to engage with the ideas of Autonoetism, challenge its tenets, and even contribute to its ongoing development. Most of this endeavor will be guided by the work of the late professor of philosophy, George Stuart Fullerton, and of course some of Leo Gura's self-actualization content that I find relatable to this journal. Welcome to The Agora.

@Dodo you had an OBE. Not a dream.

Unless, of course, you don't know what infinity is. And that could only mean that you don't know yourself. Knowing yourself is not a matter of understanding, infinity is not a concept to be understood, let alone a concept at all. Knowing yourself is only a matter of self recognition, or sometimes put, awakening to what you are. When you awaken to what you are, there is nothing to be said or done about infinity. All is infinity, which includes every concept and every perception. There's no longer wrong or right - there is no longer the other. Once you awaken to yourself, there remains no choice but love. But, now, this raises the question: if one can go so long, perhaps countless lifetimes, without knowing infinity, then how important could it be, awakening that is? Does it appear that everyone is simply striving for awakening? Or is the opposite apparent - the endless comparison of one thing or oneself over another? Infinity cannot be compared to itself. However, despite this irrefutable truth, it appears that life has only ever been about comparison. The weighing and choosing of one thing over another. The unceasing efforts to make something better than it already is. You, yourself, are trying to become better than what you already are. You don't treat yourself or others like a person. Instead everyone, especially you, has only ever been a comparison. It's why you choose to be here, isn't it? Why you would rather do one thing over the other? Love one person over another? It doesn't seem like infinity gives a single care about knowing itself. Because if it did you, everyone would be self realised as we speak. No. The only thing infinity seems to care about is freewill. That's what the orientation and trajectory of all life forms appears to be demonstrating. Hence the degree of diversity and identities. Consciousness isn't striving for self awareness as such, but rather for meaning as you, yourself, could decern. It's not about what you are. It about what it means to be what you are. And your day-to-day choices are the determining factor of meaning. Perhaps the question isn't knowing what infinity is. Perhaps infinity already knows itself to be infinity. What else could explain its selflessness? Yes. Perhaps the only question that matters is what could it mean to be itself? Thus we dream, in order to define.

I'd rather you challenge this as much as you can. That way you might ultimately be left with no choice but to become aware of this, too.

Reality, that is to say, What Is Real For You, equals your state of consciousness. There are infinite states of consciousness thusly there will always be an infinite number of realities. However, there is nonetheless only one truth or, in other wording, That Which Is The Case, and it is very much absolute. This truth is one but because of the limitless potential of Consciousness, we can learn of this one simple truth in many many forms of direct experience. The dog is learning of the same truth as many is though in its state of consciousness which varies from man's. So just as there can be many portraits but one artist, thusly there can be many realities but one absolute truth.

Because Knowledge = State of Consciousness There is no such thing as Absolute Awakening

The techniques are as various and as numerous as the stars. Do research and let your intuition guide you. Personally, an overall technique for me is practicing love. That is to say learning to see how every moment is caused by love. You can search “Bhakti yoga” for more understanding on this. The principle is simple: to seek love is to seek higher consciousness and vice versa. This is due to the simple truth which is “S/He who cares not, knows not. And s/he who knows not, cares not.”

Death is grace. Clearly it doesn't stop forever, because there is now this life. Of course. Death is the only certainty in life that we can rest easy on knowing it will come or has come. There's just nothing more reassuring then death. When there's no choice but to be ready, you will be ready. But if you still think that there is an alternative to death, then you will suffer from your delusions. Death is and has always been the conclusion of life.