On The Nature of Physical Senses

When we touch an object - anything - we "feel" it. We are told we are capable of this, that we have five senses. Touch, Smell, Hearing, Sight, Taste. We are told in grade school about sense receptors that "feel" things, olfactory receptors that "smell" things, ocular receptors that "see" things, the hearing receptors that let us "hear", and taste receptors that allow us to "taste" things. So we believe it. We know it because we grew up thinking that we can do all these things and if we have these capabilities than all that we perceive through them, enable us to form a concept of our world based on these five senses. But are all these senses the only senses we have? Perhaps there are others. Perhaps the others may possibly alter our reality if we knew what they were, if we knew we had them, and if we explored the boundaries that defined their ability to perceive what IT, or THAT is.

We do know that our eyes only have the capacity to see up to certain dimensions of things. We can't see the sub-atomic particles, we cannot see things that float around in the air that science itself has proved existed, such as microbes, invisible air currents etc. We can smell things, yet the sense of smell in some animals is much more sensitive then ours. When we put food to be discarded in plastic bags so that they don't smell before we have the opportunity to throw them away, we assume that because the plastic contains the smells for us that will prevent roaches or mice from smelling them too. Yet isn't that presumptuous of us to think this way, just because we can't smell things? To conclude that this is true for animals or insects that exist in our reality along side of us? We know dogs have a different range of hearing than us; that they can hear things we cannot. Even taste, is quite dependent on the kinds and amounts of taste receptors our tongues contain. We presume a lot about our reality based on our five senses.

All of this is to propose that if our five senses are proved to be limited than our perception of our reality is also limited by their boundaries. If this is true, isn't it reasonable to assume that if we could change the boundaries of those senses, our reality would change as well?
Suppose we have other senses. Some people claim to have extra-sensory perception. Is it also reasonable to assert that if we don't have this perception, that it doesn't exist for others? Just because we don't see something, and in this case seeing is defined as "sensing", doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The first task then is to throw out what is acceptable and what is not. It is not reasonable, I propose, to say that since I can't hear the sounds a dog hears, or the smells another form of life smells, that they don't exist, simply because I cant smell or hear them. So too, if someone claims to hear voices, it may or may not be a symptom of mental illness, but it may also be a sense that someone has in some way been born with or developed in some unknown way in the course of their own lives that we don't as yet know. It seems fair to keep an open mind then, about everything that others may see, that we cannot. It seems prudent to be open and see how things develop for ourselves over the course of our own lives. Perhaps we can develop some of the things we see others have that we don't. Maybe we just need to try. But in order to try, we need to be open to it. If we immediately assert that because we can't see this or that than it doesn't exist, then we will be closed to ever developing anything beyond what we think we can develop. How reasonable does that sound? This is not a question of logic. This is a question of being reasonable and of being open to experiences we have not as yet had. It's about being flexible, keeping the mind open to all things, as opposed to closed down because we don't "believe" something that we really don't know anything about, because our particular upbringing has discounted this as beyond our capabilities.

Is it possible that there are "nonphysical" senses? If so, what kind of senses are we talking about? We know that only a small part of our brain capacity is utilized. Could our brains be capable of some other kinds of perceptions? If so, what are those other kinds of senses? It may be reasonable to assert, some would say, that if the five senses were more acutely developed that we could extend them beyond the boundaries that we normally expect now and into some other level that we don't as yet accept now.
Could we hear things we don't hear now? Could this be true of the other senses as well? How do we know that some people who claim to have abilities beyond the ones we now know possible are delusional, or in some way lying or exaggerating their experiences? The truth is, although we don't believe they have that capacity, we don't really know what they are capable of. Just because we may not have these capabilities doesn't mean we can conclude that it's not possible for others to have them. Again, here we need to have an open mind to all possibilities.

A lot of questions are raised here, and admittedly not many clear-cut answers are given. But it's too soon to answer some of these questions yet. Often, the pursuit of knowledge doesn't find immediate answers, but rather raises more questions. Answers come when a new level of questioning is attained, then the openness to see the answers comes in its own time.

When other topics are discussed we will come back to the issue of the potential senses other than those that we now normally consider possible.

IT

When we talk about "IT", what do we mean? From infancy, we grow to learn that what we see simply exists. We don't know why, we have no clue as to what IT is we are seeing, we don't know how we see IT, just simply, we see. We learn to identify, over time aspects of what we see as parts of our physical body, and things that are not. The things that are not are what we call our external world. Then we are simply told that this is our reality and what we learn in school tries to explain IT when even the scholars don't really understand what IT is, but simply that " It " exists and that we are apart of "IT". Is it any wonder that anyone understands anything at all?

Perplexing as it may sound, its not that "It" is beyond our comprehension, but that we need to learn how to look at "IT". To form a coherent approach to viewing what we see in a way that slowly pieces together various forms and aspects that define what we mean when we say "IT".

From the moment we are born, we begin to absorb in some mysterious way, what is around us. Slowly over time, we accept basic precepts about what we see as truth, and reality and all those terms that seem to validate that what we see is real. But do we really understand what it is we are involved in? Do we truly know how it is all this "reality" came to being? Does our knowledge explain the fundamental reasons why we are here?

Religion evolved primarily to respond to all those unexplainable uncertainties that we define as our reality. It tries to explain that our reality must have been created by some more powerful being, which most religions define as a reflection of our own form, then turn around and say that we were created in "His" form. That a higher being may even be described as a "being" largely is a concept that religion needs to present in order for our brains to accept.

How then should we approach this? By what manner of reasoning should we use to slowly build our understanding of what all this is that we are immersed in? Let us begin by throwing out all our preconceived notions about why we exist, what we are here to do, what purpose we have to be here. If what we see is real or not. Let us start by building a new foundation, a new approach for asking questions.

Journalists usually begin by asking the five W's: what, why, where, when, whom, Scientists explore the facts of nature, and define scientific facts in terms of the independent reproducibility of results over and over again. They conclude if certain experiments can be reproduced, independently, that they must form the basis of some scientific truth. That is noteworthy since they recognize that they are beginning from a point of non-knowledge, and build upon what can be done over and over again if the conditions are set by certain parameters. Theologians on the other hand view reality differently. Their claim in belief, divine revelation, and tradition, provide a concrete basis to formulate fact. They claim scientific approach simply conflicts with those concepts. But there is another way to approach all this. One that is simpler, and more importantly relies on the persons own instincts, free from cultural, religious, or scientific influences. This way can be learned and applied to almost any problem.

The basic question should be. Can we ever know what IT is in its entirety? Why do we need to know what IT is, and what is it that we can know about what IT is? As absurd as this all sounds, some western thinkers see it absurd when Eastern Philosophers simply refer to " IT" as "THAT".

When a Scientist or a Doctor, rooted in western thinking would be asked to explain a patient who claimed a life after death experience on the operating table? How do you think they would explain it? Would they approach it as say simply that the patient experienced part of the true nature of IT, or of THAT? . Would they acknowledge that some things are unexplainable to Science and leave it at that? Perhaps it's a miracle of some unexplainable proportions? Perhaps some would. Others would say, well! I think the patient didn't really die; our medical science, and instruments are not capable at this time to measure life at that level. When the heart stops, the brain ceases to produce waves. Yet obviously the brain, at that level of beginning deterioration, releases endorphins that may cause the patient at that level to experience some sort of hallucination, that when revived is remembered as a white light or some kind of tunnel, or the presence of those loved ones in their lives that have already died. That all sounds so logical and reasonable. But, does it really explain the patients' experience?

Logic itself is not enough to lay claim on the truth. Logic is an apparatus that is part of the nature of this world, and this plane of existence. It is a good method to define reality on this plane, but it does nothing to define other kinds of realities that may exist, if they exist. In order to discover if other realities exist one must be open to their possibility, and one must go beyond logic, and dispense with even that trusty tool of understanding.
Again, one must start from the beginning and formulate a new way to question what It, What That, what we all are involved in on this earth.

What follows are proposals for consideration on the nature of many subjects. It will start with the fundamental questions and build upon them slowly and consistently to some kind of way to reason and approach what it is that we may all be involved in. But in the end it must be the reader who puts it all together into a coherent format of understanding and a useful tool to use for approaching any problem or task they may find in life. No one can spoon-feed you. It is your life, and your task to understand and solve your own questions, your own problems and your own issues that you may face life. Others may help and it is always useful to talk to others, who you trust, about what your thinking is because when we tend to try and only solve our problems internally, we tend to regurgitate the same solutions over and over again. Its in talking to others, we trust and respect, in reading the credible insights that others have had, that we ourselves gain new insights into our own thinking and a level of understanding. It is each person's responsibility, and no one else's.

On Solitude

Solitude can be a wonderful thing , as long as it is recognized that there is a difference between the need for solitude and loneliness, as well as the knowledge when one has crossed the line between one (solitude) and fallen into the depths of the other (loneliness).

I have said , and will continue to say, that I am a solitary thinker. I like being a solitary thinker. When I think, I need the silence of my own thoughts uncluttered by the clatter and clutter of the world around me to reach the insights I am capable of reaching through the process of my own thinking.

I find it perplexing that so many people are afraid of being alone. Perhaps they fear that they have no ability to think unless their space is populated by others, or that without the presence of others, they would disappear into a world of nothingness, where their existence would be meaningless and insignificant. Or perhaps they are simply afraid of being alone.

When they think and have to make a choice on some particular subject, most people tend to try and consider as many options involved that are possible. They are prepared for anything, with the goal being to reduce the potential for surprises or for uncertainty. No one likes uncertainty. It tests our confidence in the ability to handle our environment, and our capability of calling forth our personal resources in dealing with a situation we may not be prepared for. So, it's easy to understand why thinking about options, we want to strategize and make some kind of order.

The only problem with being a solitary thinker is that we tend to regurgitate the same solutions. Since thinking is a solitary process, no new insights are possible since the elements that are contained within our thoughts are the same things we have thought about over and over again. It's possible to gain new elements through reading, but the best way is to communicate with other people who might, in the process of conversation, leave seeds of new lines of thinking which may be taken by the solitary thinker to a new level of insight that will bring a solution that was previously not perceived.

Eye Contact

Does anyone ever notice how little eye contact is made, when walking in the street? I often wonder why that is? Perhaps there is some inner meaning that is associated with it . Eye contact, conveys more than just the color of ones eyes , or a reaction one is having . Maybe it truly is the "mirror of the soul".
And that is why so many in americans don't like it. They may feel its an intrusion into the inner recesses of their mind , their soul or an invasion of their privacy.

Even in conversation, its very rare to find a person who sustains eye contact while talking to someone else. Its almost as if eye contact reveals some esoteric truth that speech alone does not. Perhaps looking into someones eyes conveys an emotion, or a truth that either is consistent or not with what is being said. In either case it seems likely that for some looking into someone's eyes is an uncomfortable expendature of energy which in some way causes a loss of control because it may convey something they do not want to convey.

Does this mean that there is a basic dishonesty at play here? If the fear is that looking into someones eyes for a sustained length of time conveys more than what they want? Its also noticeable that when not engaged in conversation, people also generally dislike eye contact. Perhaps the concern is that it conveys more intimacy than they want.

Men especially don't like to look into each others eyes as they pass in the street or in conversation, as if there is a sexual interest associated with it that makes men feel uncomfortable. The eye contact that is made is a quick glance,
a quick look into anothers eye, then a quick look away, as if to convey a lack of interest in what they see.

Those people who do have sustained eye contact, I have noticed , are usually people who have a certain self confidence that is conveyed through their comfort at speaking while looking directly into someones eyes and who are not afraid of relating more about who they are and what they mean , as they communicate. They exude a self assuredness that translates into an almost knowledge that what they are saying is how they truly feel and they are not afraid to say it, or I might add, to look it..

Revelations on My Shadow

I was sitting in my little corner of space today, part of my universe that I define as myself and I noticed a dark, forbodding shadow that recurs at various times when I least expect it . I said to myself, “self?” What is this black shadow that inhabits my world and causes me chaos. Its part of me , yet not. Why then am I so defensive about it when I notice it and try to understand what it is and what meaning it has in my life.

Why are things so close to what I think is my awareness, seem so familiar and yet feels so alien simeoltaneiously. I ponder these questions often , as I successively review my considerably inadequate existence that others say is meaningful, But I , perhaps in haste, conclude is insignificant and inconsequencial.. How could they possibly be right about me when I am so sure my life has lacked a substantial balance and richness that I envy in others.

I have come to the reluctant conclusion that I suffer from a malady that is so pervasive , and so integrated into my personality, that only at special moments can I see it as a distinct shadow. And only in a fleeting quiet moment when I clear my thoughts of emotions and attempt to listen to what is going on around me in a world that sometimes appears clueless harsh and filled with empty , uncompromising events.

In that isolated moment, I suffer myself an answer. “ why, you jerk, you suffer from depression. Depression? , I respond?, looking at my reflection in the mirror ,” why this is always your pattern of emotional responses since you were a child”, I say to my self who I am now convinced is actually listening to me. Explain yourself , you lurking collage of maladaptive interpretations. Simple, I hear a response in my minds eye. Your depressed, and your greatest problem is that you are so focused on preventing people from seeing your depression , that you cover it over with a sense of false well being, a pattern of cohesive, articulate responses that are so convincing and make so much sense , that your greatest claim to success is your ability to hypnotize people in to thinking you actually make sense.

By now , Im quite confused. Have I confused myself, or has this shadow, which sometimes I think is part of me and sometimes not, layed claim on my rational soul and taken hold of my sense of reality. Shades of Gollum, I think. What is happening to me?, am I really so split in my thoughts and feelings that I have depersonalized myself into a dark slinky wide eyed apparation that actually responds to my own self questions when I find myself perplexed by life, my personal failures, and my hopes and fears for the future that seems so elusive to my touch. Does this mean I am so unable to accept personal responsibility , that I cant accept my own feelings , whether good or bad as mine?.

We all suffer from depression. Some suffer from it more and others less. Some people experience it so severely that it acts as physical and emotional quick sand in their lives, preventing them from acting in ways that give them happiness, and rather reflect neurotic patterns that are so second nature , they go unnoticed.

I think of depression as a big black hole in space, that sucks my energy into it almost unperceptably at first. It comes , often out of nowhere, and encapsulates me before Im aware its even there….and initially uses its long ugly tentacles to pull itself towards me , while im distracted on other things that I deem as legitimate focus’s of my attention.
Once its tentacles encircle me, and I feel its presence moving closer, there is little I can do to counteract and dispel its growing effect on me . I begin to feel the anchor of its weight affecting every movement I make. Every effort I think of , fails to affect its growing pull. Sometimes , the onset of depression is slow and laboured, and at other times its quick and infective over the course of hours. But either way, the nature of its effects on me and on my way of thinking and acting is the same. It becomes part of my shadow that I argue with as if its an external “thing” that contains nothing of the real me.
It confuses me , it questions all the things that I have previously defined as the good me, and it makes all the comments that people say, condescending comments on a life that is by and large inconsequential, and personal acts of achievements as failures in comparison to the lives and accomplishments of others.

I often think of the Renassainse man. What makes a renassainse man so special , is their ability to do so many things well as if its so easy, as they flawlessly move from one ability to another impressing everyone watching them as if they were born with all these traits fully matured and expressive. In comparison to that, Im such a dismal failure, my shadow asserts. Why you have no skills. You have no patience, Your not as attractive , your not as worthy, your not as important, and certainly, No one cares as much for . Just look at your life. What have you really accomplished. Are you rich, where is your creativity, where is your magnanimity?, where is your empathy?

The questions of doubt just keep coming. The self doubt becomes so overwhelming that it looks from the oncoming distance as a sunami approaching and threatening to drown me in an ocean of total uncompromising negativity, that the hopelessness of my location seems only to place suicide as a small path of escape from this deluge of this dark place. What first seemed like a black hole , now becomes a dark world I inhabit that brings no light , and no possibility of relief, short of not existing, not thinking , and not feeling. I have no way to dispel this kind of darkness. My shadow even asserts that I lack the intelligence or the sensitivity to percervere. So it seems quite logical that non existing is a better alternative than continually suffereing the onslaught.

As I review all this, over the course of my life. And as I have tried to see how the evolution of my shadow has progressed as I have gotten older, I have, in certain isolated moments of lucidity come to certain conclusions about how to deal with depression, that help me hold on as if im on a small raft in the middle of a dark current.

Regardless of how deep, I have always had an innate sense that depression is not a permanent state for me. As I recognize that, it helps give me the stamina to hold on and not give into it. I realize that I need to wait till im off the roller coaster ride, when light seems more part of my reality. As part of that line of thinking, I make it a rule not to make any important decisions when im caught in a depressive state. Many decisions that we face may have effects lasting for years after we make them , and may result in other choices that could become available. Therefore I have made it a rule to defer all decisions until after the depression passes, for better or worse. I also honestly acknowlege my desire to “not exist”, and recognize that although the way to get to that point is suicide, I really don’t want suicide as that path. Not existing is another way for me to say that I don’t want to feel bad about myself or that I am hopeless, or that I have no possibility for growth and renewal, so I also recognize that in the end, I do want to exist, but I want an existence where I am happy, where I accomplish something positive, and where my affect on people refects personal growth and insight on their part. So when someone says to me, that what I said makes sense to them, that I feel confident that, I can say ,” yes self, you actually do make sense.”, and feel that in some way, I have become dyogenes holding some kind of light on a path that most people travel at one point or another.

More on this at another time......