Reference: Tertium Organum
My friend Ivan presented me with this book TERTIUM ORGANUM by P.D. Ouspensky. The title refers to THE THIRD CANON OF THOUGHT, A KEY TO THE ENIGMAS OF THE WORLD.
The work is concerned with the nature of the universe and cosmic consciousness – anyone who hobbies to struggle with those matters will find this book to be most insightful and helpful. Download Tertium Organum here free, unabridged and yours forever:
Tertium Organum by P D Ouspensky
P.D. Ouspensky starts out with the implicit belief that something cannot come from nothing. He says,
“Knowledge must start from some foundation, something must be recognized as known; otherwise we shall be obliged always to define one unknown by means of another.”
My thought is that the desire to know brings about expectation. Expectation brings about speculation. Speculation brings about assumptions. And assumptions bring about beliefs. And, thus, knowledge expands.
The seed of all knowledge seems to be the DESIRE TO KNOW. Where this desire comes from is anybody’s guess.
Here is my favorite Hymn.
Comments
In A Critique of Pure Reason Kant says:
“What may be the nature of objects considered as things in themselves and without reference to the receptivity of our sensibility is quite unknown to us. We know nothing more than our mode of perceiving them. … Supposing that we should carry our empirical intuition [sensory perception] even to the very highest degree of clearness, we should not thereby advance one step nearer to the knowledge of the constitution of objects as things in themselves.”
.
(1) Mindfulness is seeing things as they are.
(2) Mindfulness requires minimum of logical association.
(3) In fact, in mindfulness mode, one actually spots logical associations and discards them.
(4) “Thing-in-itself” is a consideration. It is a mental object. It can be known as a mental object.
Objects are constituted by considerations. Hasn’t “thing-in-itself” been a consideration of Kant?
.
LikeLike
In A Critique of Pure Reason Kant says:
“To say, then, that all our sensibility is nothing but the confused representation of things containing exclusively that which belongs to them as things in themselves, and this under an accumulation of characteristic marks and partial representations which we cannot distinguish in consciousness, is a falsification of the conception of sensibility and phenomenization, which renders our whole doctrine thereof empty and useless.
“The difference between a confused and a clear representation is merely logical and has nothing to do with content.”
.
(1) The overall system may be referred to as CONSCIOUSNESS.
(2) Sensibility (perception) is an aspect of that consciousness.
(3) Intuition as “manifestation without cause” is also an aspect of consciousness. Perception comes about with manifestation.
(4) Representation is “manifestation with cause” by logical association. Perception of “cause” is by logical association only.
There is no other meaning to manifestations other than what is perceived. There may be more meaning assigned by speculation.
.
LikeLike
Ouspensky writes,
“… Kant simply put the question, threw to the world the problem, demanding the solution but not pointing the way toward it.
“This fact is usually omitted when speaking of Kant. He propounded the riddle, but did not give the solution of it.
“And to the present day we repeat Kant’s propositions, we consider them incontrovertible, but in the main we represent them to our understanding very badly, and they are not correlated with other departments of our knowledge. All our positive science—physics (with chemistry) and biology—is built upon hypotheses CONTRADICTORY to Kant’s propositions.
“Moreover, we do not realize how we ourselves impose upon the world the properties of space, i.e., extension; nor do we realize how the world—earth, sea, trees, men—cannot possess such extension.
“We do not understand how we can see and measure that extension if it does not exist—nor what the world represents in itself, if it does not possess extension.
“But does the world really exist? Or, as a logical conclusion from Kant’s ideas, shall we recognize the validity of Berkeley’s idea, and deny the existence of the world itself except in imagination?”
.
Alright, so Kant’s pronouncements are not set in stone. But the only way we can improve upon Kant is to
(1) Verify his conclusions, and if we cannot do that then
(2) Look for inconsistencies in his conjectures starting from his fundamental assumptions, and
(3) Remove those factors causing the inconsistencies.
We cannot deny that the world exists. It doesn’t matter how it exists. Let’s just apply mindfulness to it.
MINDFULNESS
.
LikeLike
Some definitions:
CONSCIOUSNESS: The overall system of manifestation, perception, and perception-point.
MANIFESTATION: That which can be perceived to be there.
PERCEPTION: How a manifestation appears to be.
PERCEPTION-POINT: That which appears to perceive.
Consciousness is ‘something’ as opposed to ‘nothing’. Yes the definitions of the components of consciousness are somewhat circular. But that is how it is, in my opinion.
.
LikeLike
Vin: But that is how it is, in my opinion.
Chris: Welcome to my tautology! (Sung to the tune of “Welcome to My Nightmare!”)
LikeLike
Mindfulness is not nightmare!
There is nothing wrong with tautologies. When you look at them they simply expand to encompass more.
.
LikeLike
ah! well I didn’t say there was anything wrong with tautology. Just pointing it out – it’s prevalence.
LikeLike
It seems that the bigger chunk you look at the more tautological it seems to be. The closer you go to basics, the more tautological the arrangement appears to be.
.
LikeLike
INFORMATION = That which gives “form” to the mind.
Could manifestation, learning, expectation, and memory be examples of information?
.
LikeLike
Vin: Could manifestation, learning, expectation, and memory be examples of information?
Chris: Not sure. I have this life-long experience of learning music. My head is full of tunes and lyrics. Then I have this other experience of teaching myself the guitar. I went for years learning little ditties, scales, etc.,.
Then one night I had a dream where I was on the street near our local major league baseball park. I was standing there with people walking by and looking down at myself, I was holding a guitar. I felt obligated to play and it was a nervous moment but then I just tried and began playing. I could play!
When I woke, I picked up my guitar and suddenly I could play for real! Something occurred. The way I describe it is that the dream was a metaphor for something happening in my brain that allowed the data base of music to connect with the skill set I had been practicing with my hands and guitar. The two connected making the music available for me to play. Now if I can hum a tune, I can play it.
This seems related to your comment but I’m not sure how to bring the two together.
LikeLike
What influences the “form” of the mind in short and long term bases? What gets adjusted and becomes fluid and effortless? What falls into place?
.
LikeLike
In my example, a bridging occurred. That is my metaphor for something happened. What exactly happened is for someone with greater understanding than my own to say. Did something occur in my brain, yes. Did it occur only in my brain? I don’t know. Guitar practice conditioned-programmed my body and mind resulting in dexterous ability. Memorized music database somehow became available and linked to my conditioned body and mind resulting in ability to play. The most remarkable aspect to me was that the bridging aspect manifested suddenly. The previous conditioning of body and mind took place over decades. And it is interesting to me because unlike other so-called OT phenomena, I can demonstrate this phenomena. It is not utterly subjective. Of course, the sudden appearance of the ability is on my word alone. The dreaming was subjective and metaphorical.
I have only made a few small observations without answering any of your or my questions.
LikeLike
That is quite informative. Thanks.
.
LikeLike
You are welcome. 🙂
LikeLike
Ouspensky writes,
“Positive philosophy stands in a very ambiguous relation to Kant’s views. It accepts them and it does not accept them: it accepts, and considers them correct in their relation to the direct experience of the organs of sense—what we see, hear, touch. That is, positive philosophy recognizes the subjectivity of our receptivity, and recognizes everything that we perceive in objects as imposed upon them by ourselves—but this in relation to the direct experience of the senses only.”
.
Perception should be acceptable when it is mindful. Mindfulness is looking at perceptions non-judgmentally, noticing inconsistencies and straightening them out on a continual basis. All ideas, beliefs, assumptions, viewpoints, and feelings, associated with an observed inconsistency, are subject to closer examination. No other criterion is necessary.
“Subjectivity” is made up of data from mental sense channel, such as, ideas, beliefs, assumptions, viewpoints, and feelings. “Objectivity” is made up of data from physical sense channels of eye, ear, nose, tongue and body. “Objectivity” alone does not provide adequate criterion.
It is the consistency among perception through different sense channels (both mental and physical) that forms the important criterion.
.
LikeLike
Ouspensky writes,
“When it concerns itself with “scientific experience” however, in which precise instruments and calculations are used, positive philosophy evidently considers Kant’s view in relation to that invalid, assuming that “scientific experience” makes known to us the very substance of things, the true causes of our sensations—or if it does not do so now, it brings us closer to the truth of things, and can inform us later.”
.
Science uses “objectivity” as its criterion and concerns itself with data from physical sense channels only. But no matter how objective science is, its data is still influenced by subjectivity, which it ignores. This is a weakness in current science.
.
LikeLike
Ouspensky writes,
“Contrary to Kant, the positivists are sure that “more clear knowledge of phenomena makes them acquainted with things in themselves.” They think that in looking upon physical phenomena as the motions of the ether, or as electrical or magnetic phenomena, and calculating their motions, they begin to know the very substance of things, i.e., the causes of phenomena; in other words, they believe exactly in the possibility of what Kant denied—the comprehension of the true substance of things by means of the investigation of phenomena. Moreover many physicists do not consider it necessary even to know Kant; and they could not themselves exactly define in what relation they stand toward him. Of course it is possible not to know Kant, but it is impossible to controvert him. Every description of physical phenomena, by its every word, is related to the problems set forth by Kant—remains in this or that relation to them.”
.
There are no such things as “things-in-themselves.” Manifestation, perception and perception-point are aspects of the system of consciousness. These aspects are not independent of each other.
Positivists (scientists) are incorrect in believing that they will understand the phenomena out there, and their causes, totally objectively.
.
LikeLike
Ouspensky writes,
“In general, the position of “science” in regard to this question of “subjectively imposed” or “objectively cognized” is more than tottering, and in order to form its conclusions “science” is forced to accept many purely hypothetical suppositions as things known—as indubitable data, not demanding proof.
“Moreover, physicists forget one very significant fact: in his book, Analysis of Sensations, Mach says:
In the investigation of purely physical processes we generally employ concepts of so abstract a character that as a rule we think only cursorily, or not at all, of the sensations (elements) that lie at their base…
The foundation of all purely physical operations is based upon an almost unending series of sensations, particularly if we take into consideration the adjustment of the apparatus which must precede the actual experiment. Now it can easily happen to the physicist who does not study the psychology of his operations, that he does not (to reverse a well-known saying) see the trees for the wood, that he overlooks the sensory element at the foundation of his work. . . Psychological analysis has taught us that this is not surprising, since the physicist is always operating with sensations.
“Mach here calls attention to a very important thing. Physicists do not consider it necessary to know psychology and to deal with it in their conclusions.”
.
The fundamental axioms that science operates on are not totally objective. So, the claim by science that it is totally objective is contradicted.
.
LikeLike
Ouspensky writes,
“But when they are more or less acquainted with psychology, with that part of it which treats of the forms of receptivity, and take it into consideration, then they hold the most fantastic duality of opinion, as in the case of the man of orthodox belief who tries to reconcile the dogmas of faith with the arguments of reason, and who is obliged to believe simultaneously in the creation of the world in seven days, seven thousand years ago, and in geological periods hundreds of thousands of years long, and in the evolutionary theory. He is thus forced to resort to sophisms, and demonstrate that by seven days is meant seven periods. But why seven, exactly, he is unable to explain. For physicists the rôle of the “creation of the world” is played by the atomic theory and the ether, with its wave-like vibrations, and further by the electrons, and the energetic, or electromagnetic theory of the world.”
.
Scientists live with beliefs that are inconsistent with their theories. It is like living a double life. Maybe, the reason scientists keep on going is because they unconsciously want to understand themselves.
.
LikeLike
Ouspensky writes,
“Or sometimes it is even worse, for the physicist in the depth of his soul feels the falsity of all old and new scientific theories but fears to hang in the air, as it were; to take refuge in mere negation. He has no system in place of that whose falsity he already feels; he is afraid to make a plunge into mere emptiness. Lacking sufficient courage to declare that he believes in nothing at all, he accoutres himself in all contradictory theories, as in an official uniform, only because with this uniform are bound up certain rights and privileges, outer as well as inner, consisting of a certain confidence in himself and in his surroundings, to forego which he has no strength and determination. The unbelieving positivist—this is the tragic figure of our times, analogous to the atheist or unbelieving priest of the times of Voltaire. Out of this abhorrence of a vacuum come all dualistic theories which recognize “spirit” and “matter” existing simultaneously and independently of one another.”
.
It is obvious that objectivity cannot be separated from subjectivity and consistency must be found between the two. But just because there is a vacuum, does it need to be filled?
Knowledge is not absolute. The utmost we can do is spot inconsistencies and determine the factor which is contributing to that inconsistency. Let the rest be.
.
LikeLike
Ouspensky writes,
“In general, to a disinterested observer, the state of our contemporary science should be of great psychological interest. In all branches of scientific knowledge we are absorbing an enormous number of facts destructive of the harmony of existing systems. And these systems can maintain themselves only by reason of the heroic attempts of scientific men who are trying to close their eyes to a long series of new facts which threatens to submerge everything in an irresistible stream. If in reality we were to collect these system-destroying facts they would be so numerous in every department of knowledge as to exceed those upon which existing systems are founded. The systematization of that which we do not know may yield us more for the true understanding of the world and the self than the systematization of that which in the opinion of “exact science” we do know.”
.
Today, science is becoming increasingly complex because there are simply too many observations floating out there that have not been knitted together. There are too many inconsistencies that have not been resolved.
It is time again to look at the fundamental axioms on which we base knowledge.
.
LikeLike
This is the end of the review of Chapter 1 of TERTIUM ORGANUM by P.D. Ouspensky. Now I need to organize my notes.
A thought just came that there may be a book on MINDFULNESS here. It doesn’t have to be a long drawn book, but a very simple book.
.
LikeLike
Space seems to be the “fabric” of perception. Filters and consideration provide overtones to space.
The dimensions of time seem to be persistence, motion and sequence. Persistence comes from the degree of condensation. Motion comes from relative change. And there is a sequence to occurrences.
LikeLike
Vinaire: Persistence comes from the degree of condensation.
Chris: And both condensation and persistence seems to come from “ratio of iteration.”
LikeLike
That is an interesting thought.
Maybe mantra reverses this iteration.
LikeLike
That is an interesting thought. Especially when beautiful girls do the chanting!
I see this possibility in two ways: 1. To slow the iteration, which I consider impossible. Or, 2. Speed up or widen the scope of perception of the mind.
LikeLike
At the moment my approach is mindfulness and resolving inconsistencies by looking at them more closely.
I have almost resolved the inconsistency on the subject of beautiful girls.
.
LikeLike
LOL! Good one.
LikeLike
Irrational Haiku
The truth is a lie.
Something is nothing’s subset.
Be. Free. Anyway.
LikeLike
A not-a-haiku:
Truth and lie
Are both manifestations
Both intriguing.
LikeLike
When we look at what is there, either with closed, or with open eyes, without any preconceived notions, we find it to be quite astonishing. Suddenly, we realize that we really don’t know what we are looking at. It is at once scary and exhilarating.
Then the names and forms that we have been taught, start appearing in the mind, and we start to “understand” once again what is there. The logical associations are back in place again. That provides a relief.
The foundation of knowledge is not something esoteric. It is simply the logical associations among what is there.
.
LikeLike
A “cause” of a manifestation is an “earlier” manifestation by some logical association. The cause of this earlier manifestation may still be an “earlier” manifestation by similar association. Thus, the causes may stretch back endlessly as long as logical associations are provided.
Ultimately, there has to be a manifestation with no association with some prior manifestation, which could be perceived. But the logic of “there must be a cause” may force us to speculate. A mental object, such as, “uncaused cause” may then be established to satisfy the logic. Thus, come about filters.
Logic is likely to lead ultimately to speculation and filters.
The known is simply the reality, which is there. The unknowns are the logical “filters” that are “coloring” that reality.
.
LikeLike
Vin: Logic is likely to lead ultimately to speculation and filters.
Chris: This seems a disservice to an important thinking tool. I think its better to say fallacious logic leads to speculation and filters. Looking is also a good tool. But if we left out the step of looking for inconsistencies we could misuse this tool as well. Good sound logic wrings out and presents inconsistencies for our viewing pleasure.
LikeLike
How do you define fallacious logic?That would be an inconsistency wouldn’t it?
.
LikeLike
Correct. The operative word being fallacious. These are already worked out such as “false major premise.” I think it is useful to be well drilled in the make up of a syllogism since our minds tend to operate after that model. Or if not, lining up our thinking, well, actually as I think of it, logic is a type of filter designed to snag inconsistencies, isn’t it?
LikeLike
So, fallacious logic would be inconsistency in logic.
What makes logic consistent?
.
LikeLike
haha lack of inconsistencies? Do I pass?
LikeLike
OMG! It’s circular! I simply cannot believe it!
LikeLike
So in reality we begin with consistency, such as the singularity and proceed with inconsistencies forever after? That is one way of looking at it. I have to be careful that you do not brainwash me into one of your cults though!
LikeLike
I have come to recognize that I am cult-prone.
LikeLike
We are already part of a cult called “the universe.” Currently we are trying to chart a way out of it.
You are doing pretty good so far.
.
LikeLike
(1) The starting point is what is there.
(2) When we are not mindful we are likely to add filters.
(3) When we are mindful we are likely to subtract filters.
(4) I have no way of knowing in advance if 100% of the filters are subtracted. I don’t even know if that is possible.
(5) All we can do is keep being mindful.
.
LikeLike