Posts
the less precisely the MOMENTUM is known.
While this is a specific statement concerning two characteristics of a particle, there are many interpretations also which apply this principle to the observer and the observed. It can also be called the observer effect. It is used to describe changes that the act of observing will make on the phenomenon being observed. In psychology it refers to the behavior of anyone being observed changing by the act of the observation.
Position and momentum are two characteristics of a particle that are being used to study it. If we consider the particle to be an analogy of life, then the two characteristics that we can use to study life are through the mind or through the heart (thoughts or feelings).
Neurobiologically both heart and mind are denizens of the brain and their interactions with each other are complex. At a certain level just like a particle can be described as pure momentum or pure mass (the dual theory of light) thus any perception of the mind can be accomplished using entirely reason or entirely feelings. That is a polarized level and in the interest of talking about averages we will consider the middle ground in the dyads of thought-feeling and momentum-mass. In the middle ground of the thought-feeling dyad, one cannot exist without the other. To separate the two probes of sensing is not possible. Primarily "thought" can be used to observe an object based on its height, length and depth but without the "feeling" the object being sensed will remain in a vacuum. The information about an apple will only be complete once I know that it is red and that it promises the same feeling as I had when I ate a similar one.A balance between thought and feeling needs to be struck for me to decide on the observation about that apple.
Human beings cannot be aware of the true state of affairs if they utilize feeling or reason alone. To be aware of the nearest estimate one has to use a blend of thought and feeling. Just like to determine the nature of particle ony postion or only momentum cannot be used. Both have to be used in conjunction and knowing at the same time what the possibility of error is.
We were talking about an apple which happens to be an object of mass. Hence to perceive it fully to ourselves in the two poles of thought and feeling, we might need to perceive it closer to the pole of thought. Similarly if we were attempting to perceive an aesthetic concept or art, it might be useful to perceive it closer to the pole of feeling. The truce that we negotiate in between the extent of thought and extent of feeling is intuition. Just like mathematical formulae can give the probability and extent of error in oberving particles, our souls or whatever the organ of intuition is called, determines the adequacy of our under or over reliance on thought and feeling.
So the question arises whether it is a good idea to observe life and reach a useful conclusion about it with reason or feeling. Is it good to think about life or is it good to believe in it without question. The great instrument of orientation is the thing by which we come up with an answer to this.
"Human beings are feeling animals", some say. Agreed that the primitive brain (amygdala, thatlamus, hypothalamus and pituitary) is entirely feeling. However the telencephalon or the executive brain is also well developed and both parts can override each other depending on the situation. If feeling is the only thing that is used to perceive life and make decisions about it, then we run the risk of turning into suicide bombers. If reason is the only thing that is used to perceive life and make decisions about it, then we run the risk of becoming an equally abhorrent creed of scientists.
Position and momentum are two characteristics of a particle that are being used to study it. If we consider the particle to be an analogy of life, then the two characteristics that we can use to study life are through the mind or through the heart (thoughts or feelings).
Neurobiologically both heart and mind are denizens of the brain and their interactions with each other are complex. At a certain level just like a particle can be described as pure momentum or pure mass (the dual theory of light) thus any perception of the mind can be accomplished using entirely reason or entirely feelings. That is a polarized level and in the interest of talking about averages we will consider the middle ground in the dyads of thought-feeling and momentum-mass. In the middle ground of the thought-feeling dyad, one cannot exist without the other. To separate the two probes of sensing is not possible. Primarily "thought" can be used to observe an object based on its height, length and depth but without the "feeling" the object being sensed will remain in a vacuum. The information about an apple will only be complete once I know that it is red and that it promises the same feeling as I had when I ate a similar one.A balance between thought and feeling needs to be struck for me to decide on the observation about that apple.
Human beings cannot be aware of the true state of affairs if they utilize feeling or reason alone. To be aware of the nearest estimate one has to use a blend of thought and feeling. Just like to determine the nature of particle ony postion or only momentum cannot be used. Both have to be used in conjunction and knowing at the same time what the possibility of error is.
We were talking about an apple which happens to be an object of mass. Hence to perceive it fully to ourselves in the two poles of thought and feeling, we might need to perceive it closer to the pole of thought. Similarly if we were attempting to perceive an aesthetic concept or art, it might be useful to perceive it closer to the pole of feeling. The truce that we negotiate in between the extent of thought and extent of feeling is intuition. Just like mathematical formulae can give the probability and extent of error in oberving particles, our souls or whatever the organ of intuition is called, determines the adequacy of our under or over reliance on thought and feeling.
So the question arises whether it is a good idea to observe life and reach a useful conclusion about it with reason or feeling. Is it good to think about life or is it good to believe in it without question. The great instrument of orientation is the thing by which we come up with an answer to this.
"Human beings are feeling animals", some say. Agreed that the primitive brain (amygdala, thatlamus, hypothalamus and pituitary) is entirely feeling. However the telencephalon or the executive brain is also well developed and both parts can override each other depending on the situation. If feeling is the only thing that is used to perceive life and make decisions about it, then we run the risk of turning into suicide bombers. If reason is the only thing that is used to perceive life and make decisions about it, then we run the risk of becoming an equally abhorrent creed of scientists.
No comments:
Post a Comment