The external world (ie everything outside the observer's body) is seperated from the observers body due to its own mass. If i throw a rock at my desc i will not suffer due to the rock hitting the desc, since the desc is not part of me. Moreover i can touch the desc, and push it around, feeling its weight due to its mass. This way i can- as anyone else- very easily establish that my desc is indeed not a part of my imagination.
Or can i?
In Psychosis ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis ) a person could feel the desc's mass on his hands, but in reality there would have been no desc infront of him; just his own imagined desc.
But lets assume for the moment that a person is not psychotic. He can establish that the desc infront of him is real, because he can move it, and so realise that it has mass. It is very important that he realises the object has mass (and due to it the potential of having energy), ie it is material, ie it is existant in the outside world, since all of its other properties (form, colour, meaning) are not part of the actual object anymore than they are dependant on the observer. Form is dependant on the eyes, and also on the world of thought. Colour also. Meaning is entirely dependant on thought.
However that is not the end of the object's dependancy on the observer's world of thought. For it isnt only the actual object that is realised due to formations in the mind, but moreover the entire notion of an external world, as a field inside of wic the observer is moving. A different field than that of the inside world, as can be established by imagining something which isnt part of the external world, and then comparing the impression with that of the external object.
In Psychology objects are divided in two large groups. External and Internal ones. Whereas an external object can be a desc, a pen, a person etc, and internal can be of innumerable types. It can be a thought, an emotion, an imagined image of an external object, a collective view about a physical experiment, a symbolism, the notion of history or mathematics and so on. An object is anything which can be seen as a unit at any one time.
As in physics, where one can realise an external object as a unit in many levels (ie a desc is unit as a desc, if we are conducting an experiment in mechanical physics, but a desc is not a unit if we are conducting an experiment about its molecules) likewise in the world of thought there can be many different levels of realising something as a unit. In sociology for example a person is a unit, but in psychology a person is not a unit, but a vast universe. In military theory a single soldier is even less significant than a single person is in sociology.
However an observer can be still viewing the external world as a recognisable notion, and likewise the objects in that world. Everyone can grasp the idea of an external world, although definately each individual will have a very different personal understanding of it. If one is in his room then the external world will be the known environment of that room; a desc, a bed, a chair, a carpet, walls and a door. However that known environment in reality is not built upon something as known. The notions of the objects are built on top of the notion of the external world, which in itself was built upon other mental realms. We can have flights of thought which lead us to other parts of our consciousness, but in reality even that seemingly most basic, and perhaps even boring, realm of consciousness, the realm of the understanding of an outside world on a basic level, is revealed to not be basic at all.
It is highly probable that the notion of an outside world was first formed by early prehistoric man, or his hominid ancestors. Definately a lot before the first sense of a past, and of a history, the sense of a differentiation of mental fields (that of an external and an internal world) had to be achieved first so that animisms could be developed. Animism, early religion, consisted of the belief that the person could influence the external world with his emotions. While on the surface it might seem that this belief was based on the contrary on a lack of differentiation between external and internal world, we should note that if there hadnt been a differentiation between them then there wouldnt have been any need of an animism, since the animism would have been the natural perception itself, and therefore it wouldnt have stood out. Therefore animisms could have had the role of moving against the differentiation of the notions of an external and an internal world, but remaining dependant on that differentiation being on a deeper level acceptable.
Anyone has an experience of the basic way that the mind works in accepting new knowledge: in early school one accepts knowledge all of the time. From basic maths to writing the language, he senses that whereas at first some attempt needs to be made so as to learn something new, later on that which he has learned has sunk inside his consciousness and now is not as easily reachable as far as its status of accepted knowledge goes. Likewise, on a much larger historically scale, the differentiations of such notions as the external andinternal world, appear to have at some time been "learned", and then sunk into other levels of consciousness. However through DNA the earlier stages of mental development of the human species remain in our brains, and so do those previous mental organisations, which predated prehistory.
Or can i?
In Psychosis ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis ) a person could feel the desc's mass on his hands, but in reality there would have been no desc infront of him; just his own imagined desc.
But lets assume for the moment that a person is not psychotic. He can establish that the desc infront of him is real, because he can move it, and so realise that it has mass. It is very important that he realises the object has mass (and due to it the potential of having energy), ie it is material, ie it is existant in the outside world, since all of its other properties (form, colour, meaning) are not part of the actual object anymore than they are dependant on the observer. Form is dependant on the eyes, and also on the world of thought. Colour also. Meaning is entirely dependant on thought.
However that is not the end of the object's dependancy on the observer's world of thought. For it isnt only the actual object that is realised due to formations in the mind, but moreover the entire notion of an external world, as a field inside of wic the observer is moving. A different field than that of the inside world, as can be established by imagining something which isnt part of the external world, and then comparing the impression with that of the external object.
In Psychology objects are divided in two large groups. External and Internal ones. Whereas an external object can be a desc, a pen, a person etc, and internal can be of innumerable types. It can be a thought, an emotion, an imagined image of an external object, a collective view about a physical experiment, a symbolism, the notion of history or mathematics and so on. An object is anything which can be seen as a unit at any one time.
As in physics, where one can realise an external object as a unit in many levels (ie a desc is unit as a desc, if we are conducting an experiment in mechanical physics, but a desc is not a unit if we are conducting an experiment about its molecules) likewise in the world of thought there can be many different levels of realising something as a unit. In sociology for example a person is a unit, but in psychology a person is not a unit, but a vast universe. In military theory a single soldier is even less significant than a single person is in sociology.
However an observer can be still viewing the external world as a recognisable notion, and likewise the objects in that world. Everyone can grasp the idea of an external world, although definately each individual will have a very different personal understanding of it. If one is in his room then the external world will be the known environment of that room; a desc, a bed, a chair, a carpet, walls and a door. However that known environment in reality is not built upon something as known. The notions of the objects are built on top of the notion of the external world, which in itself was built upon other mental realms. We can have flights of thought which lead us to other parts of our consciousness, but in reality even that seemingly most basic, and perhaps even boring, realm of consciousness, the realm of the understanding of an outside world on a basic level, is revealed to not be basic at all.
It is highly probable that the notion of an outside world was first formed by early prehistoric man, or his hominid ancestors. Definately a lot before the first sense of a past, and of a history, the sense of a differentiation of mental fields (that of an external and an internal world) had to be achieved first so that animisms could be developed. Animism, early religion, consisted of the belief that the person could influence the external world with his emotions. While on the surface it might seem that this belief was based on the contrary on a lack of differentiation between external and internal world, we should note that if there hadnt been a differentiation between them then there wouldnt have been any need of an animism, since the animism would have been the natural perception itself, and therefore it wouldnt have stood out. Therefore animisms could have had the role of moving against the differentiation of the notions of an external and an internal world, but remaining dependant on that differentiation being on a deeper level acceptable.
Anyone has an experience of the basic way that the mind works in accepting new knowledge: in early school one accepts knowledge all of the time. From basic maths to writing the language, he senses that whereas at first some attempt needs to be made so as to learn something new, later on that which he has learned has sunk inside his consciousness and now is not as easily reachable as far as its status of accepted knowledge goes. Likewise, on a much larger historically scale, the differentiations of such notions as the external andinternal world, appear to have at some time been "learned", and then sunk into other levels of consciousness. However through DNA the earlier stages of mental development of the human species remain in our brains, and so do those previous mental organisations, which predated prehistory.
