Mind in Existence

Science is about the observable. It assumes absolute terms in its definition of things. In science, absolutes are formulated that function in fixed theories. We need only refer to our own everyday experience as being one in absolute terms, to see that science is but an extension of this. Everything, even the words we use, has an absolute nature in identity in order to be viable. Our experience of reality is in absolute terms; yet we have this notion that the absolute transcends time. We observe things of time are ephemeral, taking for granted that our concept of time itself is an absolute one. What distracts us from the immutability of the absolute in identification is the perceptible process of change (again absolute as a concept in order to be understood). While we identify things in absolute terms, we see changes in them that distracts us from our use of the absolute in identification.  The absolute in our minds comes to represent changelessness, and nothing in nature is changeless, therefore the absolute is above time - quite ignoring the absolute nature of identity that defines all things of nature.

The interesting thing is that just as we identify in absolute terms observable phenomena, so these phenomena act contextually in that absolute definition of them, proving that they affect each other in the very absolute terms we define them. Our observation of the absolute nature of phenomena, as defined in any theory, is just that - an observation, proving things outside our heads affect each other, and once known dependably so, as they do inside our heads. It follows that the absolute nature of concepts is the way things are defined in their contextual existence. Reality in its absolute forms is conceptual in nature, our own concepts proof. Once known, reality is completely conceptually represented in identity forms we call knowledge of things. Thus reality is of the form of knowledge, whereby existing things are defined in contexts as absolute forms.

What seems to be the problem is that we have minds and there is none to be observed in the context of existing things! But if the perception of what exists and functions is in terms of identity, and identity is a function of mind, it stands to reason existing things as contextual identities are a function of mind. The contextual grasp of existing things is one of mind, just as our minds grasp things as concepts, and one that precedes our mind, since our mind itself is a product of contextual formation.

The mind that is the context of existing things that are then perceived and retained in our minds as concepts, identities, contains, like our minds, a storage of the process of existence. A process because the steps of existence are continuously stored and explain the continuity in existence. A tree is seen in the present phase or moment of its existence at any one time, but where is its past stored that is in continuity of form with it in the present? A weather front that approaches the land is a moving phenomenon, but its present sight is assumed to include its now non-existent past, taken for granted as explaining the present form of the front, from moment to moment. Likewise, with all existence – only the present is apparent, but the mind of existence retains its past, and its future, to explain the present. I say, the mind of existence, because contextually the whole past is retained, the future assumed, just as it is in our mind.

Where is this mind of existence, yet without whose presence existence as a process cannot be explained? - whose existence is only apparent in the conceptual nature of identified things – in process, that is, with only the present apparent, with the past as in an equivalent to our memory in that mind. The future too unfolds in direct continuity with the present and proves an unfolding of content in a moment by moment revelation of that stored in a mind.

Existence is of the form of a manifestation whose present manifest moment is in continuity with the past and draws from the future till it is finally complete. Past? Future? What are these but concepts in our minds, which the manifestation in existence fulfils, proving that existing things are of the nature of the concepts of our minds, rather, that our minds are derivative forms of the mind of existence.


More by :  R. D. Ashby

Top | Perspective

Views: 3431      Comments: 0