Guest guest Posted November 24, 1999 Report Share Posted November 24, 1999 dear gregji, here's the article i refer to(reproduced in full from cw's vol.9/pg.289)-- NOTES (An undated and untitled,one-page manuscript in Swami Vivekananda's own handwriting) My nerves act on my brain-the brain sends back a reaction which,on the mental side,is this world. Something-x-acts on the brain through the nerves,the reaction is this world. Why not the x be also in the body-why outside? Because we find the 'already created outside'world(as the result of a previous reaction of the brain) acts on us calling on a further reaction. Thus inside becomes outside and creates another action,which interior action created another reaction,which again becomes outside and again acts inside. The only way of reconciling idealism and realism is to hold that one brain can be affected by the 'world' created as reaction by another brain from inside,i.e.,the mixture x+mind which one brain throws out can affect another,to which it's similarly external. Therefore as soon as we come within the influence of this hypnotic circle,or influence,created by hundreds of preceding brains we begin to feel this world as they see it. **words in ' ' are in italics--devendra.vyas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 24, 1999 Report Share Posted November 24, 1999 At 08:44 AM 11/24/99 GMT, Devendra Vyas wrote: Dear Devendra, Thanks for typing this in. I haven't seen this manuscript myself, but let me take a stab at a few points. Maybe those who know Swami Vivekananda's metaphysical approach better can help. It seems he is using the perceptual, physiological model to do two things: 1. Trying to explain why there seems to be a world, explain how it is we see inside and outside. 2. Trying to solve the problem of realism vs. idealism (i.e., is there really a world out there, or is it all just ideas?) I must confess I don't find his attempt for (2) very convincing. Based in the fact that the brain's two hemispheres are separate and external to each other, Swami proposes that the brains affect each other, making us think there's a world. His argument seems to be that both brains are inside (e.g., Brain A and Brain B). Swami proposes that one, say Brain A, sends signals to Brain B. Brain B mistakenly interprets these signals to be coming from the outside world, whereas it's only being fed info from Brain A. Therefore we think there's a world. The problem is, with all due respect, Swami's solution begs the question. By retaining the notion of brains that are external to each other but both on the inside, he's *assuming* the reality of physical objects, and the reality of the inside/outside distinction. But these things are just what he's trying to establish. The inside/outside distinction is nothing more than a convenient, conventional thing, and can't bear too much intense philosophical scrutiny. The border between the inside and outside is usually thought to be the skin. If we proceed more carefully, we can put the point about question-begging in another way. That is, why aren't the brains part of the world? Does the world begin only outside the skin? For purposes of investigation only, let's stipulate that perception happens from a point of awareness located in the frontal lobe of the brain. Given that, EVERYTHING perceived would be "outside." There have been many other ways to address the realist/idealist problem, both in Western and Eastern approaches. Regards, --Greg >My nerves act on my brain-the brain sends back a reaction which,on the >mental side,is this world. >Something-x-acts on the brain through the nerves,the reaction is this world. >Why not the x be also in the body-why outside? >Because we find the 'already created outside'world(as the result of a >previous reaction of the brain) acts on us calling on a further reaction. >Thus inside becomes outside and creates another action,which interior action >created another reaction,which again becomes outside and again acts inside. >The only way of reconciling idealism and realism is to hold that one brain >can be affected by the 'world' created as reaction by another brain from >inside,i.e.,the mixture x+mind which one brain throws out can affect >another,to which it's similarly external. >Therefore as soon as we come within the influence of this hypnotic circle,or >influence,created by hundreds of preceding brains we begin to feel this >world as they see it. > >**words in ' ' are in italics--devendra.vyas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 24, 1999 Report Share Posted November 24, 1999 dear greg,kalyankumar, you both have given valuable leads. greg,i too find 2. not very convincing.but i think swamiji is talking about 2 different brains(as in kalyankumar's post) and not 2 different hemispheres of the same brain,what do you feel? >Greg Goode <goode >advaitin >advaitin >Re: the quote of sw.vivekananda i refer to... >Wed, 24 Nov 1999 10:57:28 -0500 > >At 08:44 AM 11/24/99 GMT, Devendra Vyas wrote: > >Dear Devendra, > >Thanks for typing this in. I haven't seen this manuscript myself, but let >me take a stab at a few points. Maybe those who know Swami Vivekananda's >metaphysical approach better can help. It seems he is using the >perceptual, physiological model to do two things: > >1. Trying to explain why there seems to be a world, explain how it is we >see inside and outside. > >2. Trying to solve the problem of realism vs. idealism (i.e., is there >really a world out there, or is it all just ideas?) > >I must confess I don't find his attempt for (2) very convincing. Based in >the fact that the brain's two hemispheres are separate and external to each >other, Swami proposes that the brains affect each other, making us think >there's a world. His argument seems to be that both brains are inside >(e.g., Brain A and Brain B). Swami proposes that one, say Brain A, sends >signals to Brain B. Brain B mistakenly interprets these signals to be >coming from the outside world, whereas it's only being fed info from Brain >A. Therefore we think there's a world. > >The problem is, with all due respect, Swami's solution begs the question. >By retaining the notion of brains that are external to each other but both >on the inside, he's *assuming* the reality of physical objects, and the >reality of the inside/outside distinction. But these things are just what >he's trying to establish. The inside/outside distinction is nothing more >than a convenient, conventional thing, and can't bear too much intense >philosophical scrutiny. The border between the inside and outside is >usually thought to be the skin. > >If we proceed more carefully, we can put the point about question-begging >in another way. That is, why aren't the brains part of the world? Does >the world begin only outside the skin? For purposes of investigation only, >let's stipulate that perception happens from a point of awareness located >in the frontal lobe of the brain. Given that, EVERYTHING perceived would >be "outside." > >There have been many other ways to address the realist/idealist problem, >both in Western and Eastern approaches. > >Regards, > >--Greg > > > >My nerves act on my brain-the brain sends back a reaction which,on the > >mental side,is this world. > >Something-x-acts on the brain through the nerves,the reaction is this >world. > >Why not the x be also in the body-why outside? > >Because we find the 'already created outside'world(as the result of a > >previous reaction of the brain) acts on us calling on a further reaction. > >Thus inside becomes outside and creates another action,which interior >action > >created another reaction,which again becomes outside and again acts >inside. > >The only way of reconciling idealism and realism is to hold that one >brain > >can be affected by the 'world' created as reaction by another brain from > >inside,i.e.,the mixture x+mind which one brain throws out can affect > >another,to which it's similarly external. > >Therefore as soon as we come within the influence of this hypnotic >circle,or > >influence,created by hundreds of preceding brains we begin to feel this > >world as they see it. > > > >**words in ' ' are in italics--devendra.vyas. > > >------ >Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy >focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. Searchable List Archives >are available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ Contact Email >Address: advaitins > ><< text3.html >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 24, 1999 Report Share Posted November 24, 1999 At 03:54 AM 11/25/99 GMT, Devendra Vyas wrote: >"Devendra Vyas" <dev_vyas74 > >dear greg,kalyankumar, > you both have given valuable leads. >greg,i too find 2. not very convincing.but i think swamiji is talking about >2 different brains(as in kalyankumar's post) and not 2 different hemispheres >of the same brain,what do you feel? Actually, I agree, it sounds more like what he said -- two different brains, two different "insides." If that is the case, then Swamiji's argument is in even worse shape than with the "two-hemisphere" interpretation, because he's relying on another "inside" which is "outside" himself! That other brain which he's talking about as the source of the world is actually part of the world.... This realism/idealism issue can be a very sticky one. As long as we believe and feel that there's a real world out there to be explained, then ipso facto there must be a real phenomenal subject "in here" doing the observing and explaining. Sooner or later, both sides (observed and observer) will have to be seen through. There are a few Western ideas pertaining to the realism/idealism issue on a web page I wrote for Jerry's Nonduality Salon website: Non-dualism and Western Philosophers, <www.nonduality.com/western.htm>. For advaitic approaches, the Mandukya Upanishad and Krishna Menon's _Atma Darshan_ are excellent. Regards, --Greg > >>Greg Goode <goode >>advaitin >>advaitin >>Re: the quote of sw.vivekananda i refer to... >>Wed, 24 Nov 1999 10:57:28 -0500 >> >>At 08:44 AM 11/24/99 GMT, Devendra Vyas wrote: >> >>Dear Devendra, >> >>Thanks for typing this in. I haven't seen this manuscript myself, but let >>me take a stab at a few points. Maybe those who know Swami Vivekananda's >>metaphysical approach better can help. It seems he is using the >>perceptual, physiological model to do two things: >> >>1. Trying to explain why there seems to be a world, explain how it is we >>see inside and outside. >> >>2. Trying to solve the problem of realism vs. idealism (i.e., is there >>really a world out there, or is it all just ideas?) >> >>I must confess I don't find his attempt for (2) very convincing. Based in >>the fact that the brain's two hemispheres are separate and external to each >>other, Swami proposes that the brains affect each other, making us think >>there's a world. His argument seems to be that both brains are inside >>(e.g., Brain A and Brain B). Swami proposes that one, say Brain A, sends >>signals to Brain B. Brain B mistakenly interprets these signals to be >>coming from the outside world, whereas it's only being fed info from Brain >>A. Therefore we think there's a world. >> >>The problem is, with all due respect, Swami's solution begs the question. >>By retaining the notion of brains that are external to each other but both >>on the inside, he's *assuming* the reality of physical objects, and the >>reality of the inside/outside distinction. But these things are just what >>he's trying to establish. The inside/outside distinction is nothing more >>than a convenient, conventional thing, and can't bear too much intense >>philosophical scrutiny. The border between the inside and outside is >>usually thought to be the skin. >> >>If we proceed more carefully, we can put the point about question-begging >>in another way. That is, why aren't the brains part of the world? Does >>the world begin only outside the skin? For purposes of investigation only, >>let's stipulate that perception happens from a point of awareness located >>in the frontal lobe of the brain. Given that, EVERYTHING perceived would >>be "outside." >> >>There have been many other ways to address the realist/idealist problem, >>both in Western and Eastern approaches. >> >>Regards, >> >>--Greg >> >> >> >My nerves act on my brain-the brain sends back a reaction which,on the >> >mental side,is this world. >> >Something-x-acts on the brain through the nerves,the reaction is this >>world. >> >Why not the x be also in the body-why outside? >> >Because we find the 'already created outside'world(as the result of a >> >previous reaction of the brain) acts on us calling on a further reaction. >> >Thus inside becomes outside and creates another action,which interior >>action >> >created another reaction,which again becomes outside and again acts >>inside. >> >The only way of reconciling idealism and realism is to hold that one >>brain >> >can be affected by the 'world' created as reaction by another brain from >> >inside,i.e.,the mixture x+mind which one brain throws out can affect >> >another,to which it's similarly external. >> >Therefore as soon as we come within the influence of this hypnotic >>circle,or >> >influence,created by hundreds of preceding brains we begin to feel this >> >world as they see it. >> > >> >**words in ' ' are in italics--devendra.vyas. >> >> >>------ >>Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy >>focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. Searchable List Archives >>are available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ Contact Email >>Address: advaitins >> >><< text3.html >> > >>Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. Searchable List Archives are available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ Contact Email Address: advaitins > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 1999 Report Share Posted November 25, 1999 >Greg Goode <goode > >Actually, I agree, it sounds more like what he said -- two different >brains, two different "insides." If that is the case, then Swamiji's >argument is in even worse shape than with the "two-hemisphere" >interpretation, because he's relying on another "inside" which is "outside" >himself! That other brain which he's talking about as the source of the >world is actually part of the world.... > >This realism/idealism issue can be a very sticky one. As long as we >believe and feel that there's a real world out there to be explained, then >ipso facto there must be a real phenomenal subject "in here" doing the >observing and explaining. Sooner or later, both sides (observed and >observer) will have to be seen through. > >There are a few Western ideas pertaining to the realism/idealism issue on a >web page I wrote for Jerry's Nonduality Salon website: Non-dualism and >Western Philosophers, <www.nonduality.com/western.htm>. For advaitic >approaches, the Mandukya Upanishad and Krishna Menon's _Atma Darshan_ are >excellent. I read through you Web page and found it very interesting. But could you expand a bit on this point in explicitly Advaitic terms? I'm especially interested in how intellectual analysis can be used to undermine the dominant Western 'critical' realism, which you have described in the past: we never perceive the thing in itself, but only an impression the thing makes on our sensory apparatus, which then gives rise to a representation of the thing 'inside.' Generally criticisms of this realist point of view are turned aside by responding that they lead down the slippery slope of solipsism. But Advaita would seem to offer an ingenious way out of this dilemma, since it holds that fundamentally there really are no 'others,' but only the One. I can see these preliminary inklings, but it would be very helpful if you could elaborate in greater depth on these points strictly in terms of Advaita. Thanks, Robert. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.