Knowledge & Inconsistency

contradiction2

As detailed in Perception & Knowledge, the most accurate knowledge is made up of the perceptions obtained within a span of few hundred milliseconds. Rest of the knowledge is extrapolated from data indexed among:

  1. Perception
  2. Experience
  3. Information
  4. Hypothesis
  5. Theory
  6. Principles
  7. Axioms
  8. Self

.

INCONSISTENCY

However such data is subject to inconsistencies. An inconsistency is something that doesn’t seem to make sense. There is some sort of disharmony, even when one can’t put one’s finger on it.

A physicist looks at the outer space. There is no physical medium there, yet the speed of light is constant. He is puzzled by this and makes it the subject of his research, because it is an inconsistency to him.

A person says that he has a happy married life, yet his wife is often seen crying. This is an inconsistency.

You postpone your trip to Spain because that country is torn by riots. Yet there are no riots in Spain. This is inconsistency.

One resolves repeatedly to stop smoking, yet he continues to smoke. This is an inconsistency.

A man finds life to be without purpose, yet he never had thoughts like this when he was young. This is also an inconsistency.

 

Such inconsistencies may be categorized as follows:

  1. Engram (Inconsistency in Perception)
  2. Unwanted feeling or emotion (Inconsistency in Experience)
  3. Indoctrination (Inconsistency in Information)
  4. Belief (Inconsistency in Hypothesis)
  5. Doctrine (Inconsistency in Theory)
  6. Fixed ideas (Inconsistency in Principles)
  7. Fixed viewpoints (Inconsistency in Axioms)
  8. Fixed identity (Inconsistency in Self)

Inconsistencies add inaccuracies to extrapolated knowledge. All the situations in life are the result of such inconsistencies.

.

THE ROUTE TO KNOWLEDGE

It is difficult to perceive inconsistencies when justifications are present. For example, we say that God created this universe, but God could not have created evil in this universe because God is good.

Fixation on self (shame, blame, egotism, etc.) provides a wonderful array of justifications. A person may say, “I am a failure because I do not have the abilities that make one succeed.”

But “self” is an altered view of a “tightly interrelated system of considerations” that exist in relative isolation. Instead of focusing on self (overall personal characteristics), if one focuses on the related system of consideration, and non-judgmentally spots  inconsistencies therein, then the situations in life resolve swiftly.

Mindfulness helps one perceive inconsistencies and reduce them. It also brings about rapid spiritual progress.

  1. Practice mindfulness until it becomes effortless as a second nature.

  2. Recognize inconsistencies as they arise. Do not ignore them.

  3. Immediately look at the inconsistency more closely.

  4. Draw upon data as needed. It is quite easy to research in the Information Age of today.

  5. Simply track down the inconsistency and keep looking at it more closely until it dissolves.

  6. When the inconsistency is dissolved, then that’s it… let it go.

  7. Focus on the next inconsistency as it arises.

Situations resolve much more swiftly in a group where everybody is applying mindfulness in discussions.

.

February 2, 2013 – 5:08 PM Categories: KHTK | Comments (7)

Perception & Knowledge

Reference: Philosophy Project

A Matter of Perception1

We look and perceive. Therefore, there is perception. Perception is generated by a desire to know.

For perception to occur there must be a separation between the perception point and whatever is being perceived. Thus, perception occurs across space.

Perception brings about instantaneous knowledge. However, perception retains its exact form for not more than few hundred milliseconds before it transforms into experience.

Experience allows indexing of current information with earlier information, and thus reducing the requirement for storage space. Thus, from perception to experience there is some condensation of knowledge. The directness of perception is replaced by indexing of data, which allows reconstruction of details on as-needed basis. This allows more knowledge to be stored in the same space.

Over time, experience transforms into information. Information then leads to hypotheses. Hypothesis generates theory. From theory are derived principles. And principles are consolidated into axioms. Each of these transformations allows increasing condensation of knowledge. Thus, more knowledge is stored in the same space. The storage algorithms allow for a reconstruction of knowledge from the cross-indexing of data to the desired degree of accuracy on an as-needed basis. The coordination-point of all this knowledge may then appear as the “self”.

The results of this successive condensation of knowledge may be listed as follows.

  1. Perception
  2. Experience
  3. Information
  4. Hypothesis
  5. Theory
  6. Principles
  7. Axioms
  8. Self

Points 1 to 7 above may describe a unique system of tightly interrelated considerations. Self in point 8 may be defined by this system of consideration much like a “doughnut’s hole” is defined by the doughnut.

The self may appear as a “causative individuality” but it is no more capable than what the system of consideration is capable of. The individuality would disappear with the disappearance of the system of consideration.

This system of consideration determines how the “universe” appears to the “self”.

.

VISUALIZATION & RECALL

This indexed knowledge may be played upon in infinite number of ways. This gives us visualization. Such visualization may be demonstrated by the following experiment:

Close your eyes. Think of a cat, or your favorite small pet animal. Have that pet come to you and jump in your lap. Pick it up and caress it. Feel its weight and the texture of its fur. Now let that pet jump and run away from you. Open your eyes and look in the direction in which your pet ran away.

A recall of some past memory would be a similar play, except that it is allowed to take place by itself without interference. Thus, a recall of past memory uses the same mechanism as visualization. The only difference is that visualization is actively manipulated, whereas recall is allowed to take place by itself.

Accuracy of recall would then depend on the lack of interference in the reconstruction of the memory. Thus, a proper recall shall require mindfulness.

.

February 2, 2013 – 12:14 AM Categories: KHTK | Comments (3)

IITK in the 60s

Uday Sengupta

My very dear friend UDAY SENGUPTA, who, unfortunately, passed away recently.

This picture now makes me feel sad. Uday was a wonderful artist.

{Note: Here are my current views on Death}

.

Sunil Dhawan

My good friend, Sunil Dhawan, who I have always admired for his level-headedness.

{Note: Here are my current views on Life}

.

Vinay Sushil Ashok

Here I am with my room mate, Ashok Dhawan, on the right, and dorm neighbor, Sushil Handa in the middle. This was one of the moments of relaxation from studies and antics. My room number was 113 in the first year and 213 in the subsequent years. Handa’s room number was 111 and 211 respectively. It is amazing that such small details still exist in the memory.

.

It was a wonderful life then. It is a wonderful life now.

The world around you is what you make it.

.

Vinaire

.

January 30, 2013 – 5:26 AM Categories: Uncategorized | Comments (3)

Modern Scientology OT

Here is an example of a modern Scientology OT:

A Scientology OT seems to be fixated on the salvation of the self. He treats self as something that needs to be boosted up, made powerful and glorified. But self is relative, conditioned and impermanent.

“The Absolute Truth is that there is nothing absolute in the world, that everything is relative, conditioned and impermanent, and that there is no unchanging, everlasting, absolute substance like Self, Soul, or Ātman within or without.” ~ Buddha

This fixation on self is one of the problems with Scientology. This is also pertinent to the manipulation of self, as in brainwashing.

.

January 28, 2013 – 2:27 PM Categories: Scientology | Comments (153)

Death

Angel_of_Death

At death, the body disintegrates into physical particles (atoms and molecules), and the identity that was the body is dissolved. Similarly, the observing and thinking part of the person (the living soul) also disintegrates into considerations (thoughts, memories, etc.), and the identity that was the person is also dissolved. That is my current understanding.

However, the particles and considerations remain and they can recombine into another “body plus living soul” configuration. There is infinity of such recombination.

What are the ultimate laws underlying this disintegration and reintegration, I don’t know the details at the moment. But this seems to be going on forever like complex cycles of some eternal wave according to Hinduism.

Nirvana is something different altogether. It happens to a live soul. In my opinion, nirvana is like de-condensation of CONSIDERATIONS. It is the separation of perception-point from all its considerations. This is called giving up of all attachment in Hinduism. One then sees things as they are without any filters as in Buddhism. There is no individuality in terms of attachment to considerations. A perception point is the same as any other perception point. It does not add anything to what is observed or experienced.

Nothing arrives at Nirvana. it is what remains after all attachments are dissolved. I call it a perception-point. But even the perception-point dissolves at parinirvana by merging into its own manifestation… something like electron merging into positron.

Parinirvana is probably what occurs at death, where the live soul, that was already reduced to a completely detached perception-point, merges back into its own manifestation, extinguishing both. The laws of disintegration and reintegration are thus bypassed. But this is only my speculation.

The basis of this speculation is removal of all inconsistencies that I am aware of at this level.

.

January 18, 2013 – 6:21 AM Categories: Uncategorized | Comments (44)