…Our stance as humans, however is not like this as some of these images are clearly embedded into our minds.
We, people, pay attention to, and live in arrangements that are representable by mental images. These arrangement together compose our world
M. Because of that, it is normal that we often neglect the second type of arrangements, those that belong to
W, those that cannot be represented.
God and self
The idea of God is not merely delusion created to help cope with the fear of death (although it does help people cope with the fear of death), but it is a personification to the aspect of reality that does not adhere to the causality maxim and that is unknowable. Religious rituals can be rationalized using the following argument: although we cannot really be familiar with the aspect of reality which is unknowable, we must pay tribute to it, in order not to forget of its existence.
The idea of the self is probably closer to a delusion than that of God, but it is a personification of that which is knowable - your persona, your job, the things you know and believe are you. Any habit thought or urge that is outside of this narrative is not really a part of the self. And that is not because such habits/thoughts/urges are rare. Neither because they are better, worse or in any way different than the rest of your habits/thoughts/urges. They are not part of the self for precisely that reason - they are not a part the narrative.
The self is not who you are, but who you want to be (your projected goal).
Mental images are self-enforced over time, this is why older people as a rule are more dogmatic than younger ones.
It is not about older people having more knowledge (real knowledge will make you less dogmatic if anything), it’s about having more dogmas
The society’s spell
- We create our own world.
On the lack of goal as a goal.
- Perception of time as a fractal
- The lack of ideology as ideology.
- On mistakes
- On problems
On the true nature of reality
All events which we withness must be connected with one another forming what is known as a causality chain (or chains).
An event that does not cause any other event as per their causal chain simply cannot be perceived by us, so in many ways, placing the event in the causal chain is perception itself.
This is why, in our everyday thinking, we often refer to all things that we talk about as either real or unreal (just like in logic we split statements to true and false) e.g. Stephen Hawking is real and Professor Charles Francis Xavier is not.
This line of thought, however is too naive. To see why, one just has to look at a more abstract concept, e.g. is true love real, and does it exist? It all depends on how you define it, and defining it in too robust terms is impossible, as the definition would rely on many other concepts.
the “realness” of a concept is not just a matter of whether something exist or does not you had or had not seen something which resembles it, but a matter of how much does the concept resonate with the concepts that constitute our worldview. In other words, it is not a yes/no question. The degree of realness, we can also call the degree of anticipation of perception i.e. considering an object real means that you anticipate to sense it. Although it seems counter intuitive at first, the anticipation of perseption actually comes before the perception - only after we are ready to and prepared to perceive something, we may actually come to realise that it is actually there (this statement may seem paradoxical, but as we said perception itself is paradoxical).
The black hole example is appropriate here. Earlier, we said that the black holes’ existence was postulated before actual objects were observed. But does that mean that we are to regard them (before they were actually observed) as absolutely unreal? According to this line of thought no - if the theories that postulate their existence were supported by some evidence from observation i.e. there were some way in which these theories fitted into the more general framework of knowledge of the field, then they should be viewed as “somewhat real”, as opposed to “imaginary”.
Moreover, there are aspects of black holes, which are not yet observed (and some that, are considered unobservable). Black holes still might not be exactly what we think they are. Therefore we cannot claim that they (our current notion of them) are 100% real.