--
*Mar*
Edited and Improved Version (Ideas Preserved)
*Seeing vs. Feeling without Seeing*
The faculty of seeing with the eyes operates meaningfully only within a
narrow range—on the surface of the Earth and a small region of the
troposphere, perhaps up to about fifteen kilometers. Beyond such
conditions, ordinary human sight becomes ineffective. Even within this
limited range, what we perceive through vision constitutes only a minute
fraction—perhaps 0.0035%—of the total reality that exists. Yet
three-dimensional visual perception has become the dominant paradigm
through which we interpret and understand existence.
When we look at two tables placed side by side, we perceive solid objects.
We do not see the molecules and atoms within, between, and around them. If
we were able to perceive those molecules and atoms directly, the tables as
stable objects would disappear from view, for they themselves are nothing
but molecular and atomic structures. We would then enter the arena of
abstraction—the deeper layer of reality underlying appearances.
Telescopes and microscopes extend our vision of three-dimensional forms,
but they still operate within the framework of visualized structure. They
do not grant access to abstract dimensions—particularly the realm of
feelings and emotions, or the subtle “climates” of objects and bodies
observed through such instruments. Nevertheless, we project this
earth-bound, three-dimensional mode of perception onto the entire universe.
No feeling, however, can truly be reduced to the logic of a machine.
Instead of forcing the abstract into the narrow confines of visible
three-dimensionality, we must learn to move from the concrete into the
abstract.
Our languages themselves are largely shaped by visual experience. Even
abstract nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs are ultimately rooted in
metaphors drawn from the visible world. Thus, our thinking remains tied to
the visible spectrum.
Modern science has ventured into quantum physics—the domain of atoms and
subatomic particles—and even confronts questions about consciousness. There
arises the idea that pure time may be distinct from space-time: that when
an event occurs in a “pure time” vacuum and falls below the speed of light,
space-time emerges, answering the questions “where” and “when.” Pure time,
in this sense, would be spaceless time, distinct from measurable space-time.
We must ask how the feelings grounded in breathing, smelling, and sensing
on Earth might correspond to the vast electromagnetic realities of the
cosmos, where space-time seems to arise from, or coexist with, pure vacuum
time. Gravitation curves electromagnetic waves; some may slow from the
speed of light and become bound within space-time. There appears to be a
tension between space-time and a hypothetical spaceless time of the
vacuum—a struggle toward reintegration.
Human beings are fundamentally tied to Earth. Without advanced technology,
we cannot survive on the Moon or elsewhere in the universe. Even there, we
must artificially recreate Earth-like conditions. We cannot easily develop
entirely new paradigms of perception suited to alien environments.
Perhaps we must rediscover the abstract arena spoken of by the ancient
Rishis. The immense distances and diverse environments of cosmic space,
filled with both space-time and what might be called spaceless time, seem
practically insurmountable. If one were to enter pure vacuum in a rocket,
the rocket itself would generate a new space-time framework. In doing so,
it might disturb electromagnetic conditions—symbolically “arresting” waves
and converting them into localized space-time phenomena.
Thus, technology already alters natural systems on Earth, and it may also
interfere with larger cosmic systems. In this sense, technology can pollute
not only the Earth but potentially the cosmos itself.
We must accept nature on its own terms and question our right to tamper
with its systems. We must learn to move from the concrete world we inhabit
into the abstract arena beyond it.
Make the mind quiet. Close the eyes. Meditate in unspoiled and healthy
nature. When one begins to feel oneself as part of nature rather than
separate from it, a process of revelation unfolds—perhaps culminating in a
kind of inner enlightenment, metaphorically described as electromagnetic
illumination.
Unfortunately, many universities today are dominated by technological and
economic priorities. They often evaluate even higher learning in terms of
profit and loss, applying commercial accounting principles to education
itself. The possibility of disciplined exploration of abstract experience
is rarely acknowledged. Costs and returns are measured in money rather than
in depth of understanding or genuine wisdom.
—YM Sarma
------------------------------
My Views (Separate from the Edited Text)
Your essay raises profound philosophical and spiritual concerns. I find
several aspects especially powerful:
1.
*Insightful Critique of Visual Dominance*
You correctly observe that human cognition is heavily biased toward
sight. Much of Western philosophy and science has privileged “seeing” as
knowing. Contemporary cognitive science also acknowledges that perception
is limited and constructed. In that sense, your critique is philosophically
strong.
2.
*Valuable Emphasis on the Abstract and Experiential*
Your call to rediscover interior, experiential, and contemplative modes
of knowing resonates with traditions of meditation, phenomenology, and
certain strands of physics-inspired philosophy. The reminder that feelings
and consciousness cannot simply be reduced to machine logic reflects an
ongoing debate in philosophy of mind.
3.
*Where Clarification Is Needed (Scientific Concerns)*
Some of the claims about physics—pure time vs. space-time, rockets
generating new Big Bangs, electromagnetic waves slowing into space-time—are
metaphorically suggestive but not aligned with current physical theory.
-
In modern physics (following Einstein), space and time are already
unified as space-time; “pure time” as spaceless vacuum is not an accepted
physical category.
-
Rockets do not create new Big Bangs or fundamentally alter cosmic
structure simply by moving through vacuum.
-
Gravitational curvature affects space-time itself, not just
electromagnetic waves in isolation.
If these sections are intended metaphorically, they are powerful. If
intended literally, they would need refinement to align with established
physics.
4.
*Technology and Pollution of the Cosmos*
The ethical warning about technological overreach is important. While
current space missions do not destabilize cosmic structure, human activity
has already polluted Earth’s orbit with debris. So your broader moral
concern—that technological expansion requires ethical maturity—is very
valid.
5.
*On Universities and Economics*
Your critique reflects a widespread global concern: education
increasingly shaped by market forces. However, many universities still
support pure research, philosophy, and contemplative studies. The situation
is mixed rather than uniformly bleak.
6.
*Overall Assessment*
At its core, your essay is not primarily about physics—it is about
epistemology (how we know), ontology (what is real), and ethics (how we
should live). Its deepest strength lies in urging a shift from surface
perception to inward awareness.
If you wish, I can also:
-
Help you refine this into a publishable philosophical essay,
-
Separate the scientific metaphors from literal claims,
-
Or develop it into a more structured book chapter format.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CACDCHCKk7YGv-RLS%2B0V-s10%2BLhDhmUefxfuQRoX2PsfyFnu8Sg%40mail.gmail.com.
