While choosing the title of my blog did I presuppose an existence of mind and was there a relevance of its having an introspection ? Did I truly venture out for such introspection to take place with any definite causal existence in behind, if the former presupposition had been admittedly existed in my concept; or it was a mere fancy to impress the receptive field with marvel of a couple of beautiful words that betray pride of certain intellectual conditioning of human reflections beyond its own worth ? Further, did I choose it consciously or it was an impetuosity of mind that carried hidden desire to attain a glorified identity of a conscious mind beyond its real disposition ?
These were the questions, which I presented myself with even before I had conceptualized to float this blog. In a more explanatory description, it did not actually owe to its present form of public valuation, but to very necessity of its being contributory to its own existing self. The concept of publication of this blog came following on a much later course with a greater recognition of relevance of social auditing of individual expressions and its consequent effects on the social mirror. In that way, the concept of introspection had been in peaceful recluse, which realized of its relevance of social valuation in course of time. And, for these reasons I had to answer all those fundamental queries to satisfy the self long before it even found its hermitage to reside somewhere else than before a public view.
If I were to reiterate what had been the responses to those fundamental questions, it would always be natural for me to display the course it had treaded in doing so.
The presupposition of a mind is not a matter of serious analysis as both science and philosophy have accepted this presupposition as universally true with its forms and explanations varying with respective subjects of pursuits. It has also taken for granted that a mind truly exists in human body irrespective of whatever standard of intellectual ability it may hold within, subject to certain conditionings necessary for its revelation. There may run debates over efficacy of neurons, sense organs and even functional display of brain as an organ so much it relate to human thought process or its receptive faculties, either active or passive. However, there is not denial in its imperative presence in human expressions as well as experiences. In its being a subject of academic discourse, it comes out as a suiting victor faster through scientific explanation than in philosophical questioning. It appears in more glorified manner in such explanation than in any other fields of human intellectual activities. Nevertheless, if one has to assess its worth qualitatively than in form of just a quantitative presence, its placement needs to undergo validation through philosophical analysis. Empirical views of theory of knowledge propose to define mind as a reflective slate that not only reflects, but also absorbs, holds and stores images of sense experiences for initiation of concepts, present or future. These views deny existence of any pre-existing impressions upon human mind—a priori—and, as such, endorse of access to knowledge only through sense experiences ( posterior ) starting with a blank slate at initial stage of its being. According to such proposition, every impressions of sense experiences are scripted on mind to form its perception, either internal or external. The Rationalists’ hold a somewhat different view over its vacant existence at its birth, rather they hold that mind possesses some innate qualities pre-existing in itself for reasoned analysis of sense experiences and formulation of concepts. In other words, the concept is independent of sense experiences, but is enriched by their sufficiency. Kantian philosophy attempts to unify those two contrary propositions in prescribing that mind holds a form only as innate to any sensory experiences, but knowledge is only accessible to it by very dependence of sense experiences of the past or present. Yet, what remains indubitably exposed before us is the existence of mind, whatever poor, doomed, bright or creative it may so bear in its reflective activities, in human being. Thus, I being unquestionably a human being can nether be so unfortunate nor be so exceptionally be different from the rest of my fellow-beings for not having any. And, I may safely conclude to own a mind in myself.
For reasons or not, the second part of the supposition cannot justifiably be answered in scientific questioning. This postulation demands more logical investigation than in material estimation. Here again, the two broad views of philosophy run so fast and remote from one another that denies any possible treaty and it poses a frustrating impact on a general mind. According to Empiricism, the act of knowing comes from sense impressions and ideas, while ideas are copies of impressions reflected on mind, either in the past or the present. The concept of self-knowledge is denied in this view of philosophy except its acceptance as an interpretation of an internal perception. In such fashion, introspection is an internal perception according to such view, depended upon sense experiences in like manner of external perception. But, in such explanation, it necessarily demands equal valuation of internal as well as external perceptions so long they are dependent upon sense experiences and thereby admit to have a knower and a subject of knowledge to facilitate the fact occurring of who is experiencing and what is being experienced. Thus, when knower attempts to know the subject of knowledge, an introspection necessarily demands two distinct entities within one mind—one of knower and another of a subject of knowledge. In other words, it requires existence of two qualified identities embodies in a unitary self—a self that is introspecting and another that is introspected. Empiricism also presupposes an existence of unitary content and concept of mind in its theoretical postulations. Thereby if the knower is different from the subject of knowledge in case of introspection, it denies such presupposition of unitary concept of a mind on which the Empiricism fundamentally stands. This only leads to one conclusion that the self loses its identity, as a whole, while introspecting as it cannot either mutate into twosome or can explain to have introspection while not doing so, according to this view of philosophy; this leads to a further crisis of a human mind for sacrificing one part of the self—either the knowing part or the knowable part.
However, according to the view of Rationalism, human mind is capable of having such introspection for holding innate faculties inherently structured in form for analysing, conceptualising and subsequent reflections of such concepts dependent upon sense experiences so analysed within. It adequately satisfies the question and possibility of such introspection to happen in thought process.
This, although, offers suiting explanation to a primary supposition of having introspection valid and possible in human mind, the secondary supposition concerning its relevance in human being remains unanswered. This can only be reasonably answered through ontological explanations of philosophy, which presuppose the very existence of knowledge in this world of experience. And, if knowledge is there, and the knower is there, there must be a causality between such two existences and thus, there is relevance of the act of knowing. This metaphysical relevance justifies the urge for knowing in a more acceptable way than in any other explanations. In that way, I also satiated myself in accepting the relevance of introspection of mind.
The question did not seek much refuge to any academic analysis, either scientific or philosophical, for it is I, who is in the deciding position so far it relates to exercising of choice and free will. This did not demand theories of causal relationship to intervene much for justifying causal dependence of exercising such choice on sense experiences already imprinted upon the human mind. While it is an admitted fact that human mind, in its intellectual form and concept, does not bind itself in exercising its free wills, it cannot be denied that there lives a definite and cognitive reason behind such exercise and also in going for a particular choice amongst many, if such thought process abides in a rational manner. Thus, in my case too, even if I am to accept that it is my free will that demands my mind to go for introspection, it does not offer a satisfactory answer to a rational mind in support of going for that without a definite and cognitive reason behind such behaviour. And, I am bound to answer this question, else I will be left to be perceived only as a human being bereft of any rational application of mind.
If I were to analyse this pertinent question, I would only find myself with two reasons cognitively apparent in mind that adequately justifies my going for it. Yes, primarily, it is my age, which for so long has experienced varied impressions of this world and graduated on its wane towards eventual perishing, must assess its own worth in contributing against its expenses on existence. The valuation is just necessary for to suffice its existence being unquestionable. Nothing can exist if it is not valued to its worth—irrespective of the fact of its being losing or gaining or being passively neutral. This primary cause to expose it before a thorough examination is evident from its not having any contrary logic existing. The secondary reason, although it is also dependent upon the primary reason but has a distinctly perceivable face independent of the primary reason. This is for the death—the fact of ceasing to be—is so imperatively present in human mind that it leaves a permanent craving in itself to leave a legacy when it really ceases to be. Time being a very temporary companion in validity of a human mind ( in more so, of a human soul ) that it necessary commands human mind to go for justifying its impact on future prospects of mankind, and the urge of leaving a legacy naturally flows subterranean unless once in later age one discovers its tremendous potency in directing mind to go for introspection and social reactions to such introspection while validating its essence of being for a longer period when the mind ceases to act further. It is more of a duty than of a pleasure or pain to seek refuge to such yearning for leaving a legacy as human soul remains the most precious gift that a human body carries along its phase of experiencing in this beautiful world. Thus, the cause is pure and simple only to go for an active assessment of mind’s rational validity before the world that has so generously offered it to flourish, enrich, and contribute without demanding anything in return. It is, thus, a free will whether one opts for its social valuation or not; but, in its rational expression, mind can only go for that—introspection and reflecting such introspection on the social mirror. This is why I yearn to leave an imprint on such mirror for its valuation while I remain innocently apart from its material or spiritual contributions towards the mankind, whether beneficial, or detrimental, either to some or many, in whatever degree and fashion. In essentially doing so, with all its failing or success, a human mind can attain what it feels to be aware of one just deed that is to be done. And, I do it for this satisfying awareness of such deed.
For the last question, though it did have an agreeable answer to my own questioning, I leave this for the readers to imagine and perceive as if I do not do this then the very object of leaving an imprint upon the social mirror that my mind yearns to attain will be left with utter frustration.
Here is, thus, the concept of “Introspective Mind” arose and here it is for it has found a beautiful social face to view its ripples of reactions it create upon the social spectacle and here is, thus, a blog to find place before the wide and critical assessment of readers with enough reasons explained hereinbefore. I leave only with an unexplained part for the last question to let you be aware of an introspective mind, if I am to be sure of your interest to be aware of it at all.
These were the questions, which I presented myself with even before I had conceptualized to float this blog. In a more explanatory description, it did not actually owe to its present form of public valuation, but to very necessity of its being contributory to its own existing self. The concept of publication of this blog came following on a much later course with a greater recognition of relevance of social auditing of individual expressions and its consequent effects on the social mirror. In that way, the concept of introspection had been in peaceful recluse, which realized of its relevance of social valuation in course of time. And, for these reasons I had to answer all those fundamental queries to satisfy the self long before it even found its hermitage to reside somewhere else than before a public view.
If I were to reiterate what had been the responses to those fundamental questions, it would always be natural for me to display the course it had treaded in doing so.
The presupposition of a mind is not a matter of serious analysis as both science and philosophy have accepted this presupposition as universally true with its forms and explanations varying with respective subjects of pursuits. It has also taken for granted that a mind truly exists in human body irrespective of whatever standard of intellectual ability it may hold within, subject to certain conditionings necessary for its revelation. There may run debates over efficacy of neurons, sense organs and even functional display of brain as an organ so much it relate to human thought process or its receptive faculties, either active or passive. However, there is not denial in its imperative presence in human expressions as well as experiences. In its being a subject of academic discourse, it comes out as a suiting victor faster through scientific explanation than in philosophical questioning. It appears in more glorified manner in such explanation than in any other fields of human intellectual activities. Nevertheless, if one has to assess its worth qualitatively than in form of just a quantitative presence, its placement needs to undergo validation through philosophical analysis. Empirical views of theory of knowledge propose to define mind as a reflective slate that not only reflects, but also absorbs, holds and stores images of sense experiences for initiation of concepts, present or future. These views deny existence of any pre-existing impressions upon human mind—a priori—and, as such, endorse of access to knowledge only through sense experiences ( posterior ) starting with a blank slate at initial stage of its being. According to such proposition, every impressions of sense experiences are scripted on mind to form its perception, either internal or external. The Rationalists’ hold a somewhat different view over its vacant existence at its birth, rather they hold that mind possesses some innate qualities pre-existing in itself for reasoned analysis of sense experiences and formulation of concepts. In other words, the concept is independent of sense experiences, but is enriched by their sufficiency. Kantian philosophy attempts to unify those two contrary propositions in prescribing that mind holds a form only as innate to any sensory experiences, but knowledge is only accessible to it by very dependence of sense experiences of the past or present. Yet, what remains indubitably exposed before us is the existence of mind, whatever poor, doomed, bright or creative it may so bear in its reflective activities, in human being. Thus, I being unquestionably a human being can nether be so unfortunate nor be so exceptionally be different from the rest of my fellow-beings for not having any. And, I may safely conclude to own a mind in myself.
For reasons or not, the second part of the supposition cannot justifiably be answered in scientific questioning. This postulation demands more logical investigation than in material estimation. Here again, the two broad views of philosophy run so fast and remote from one another that denies any possible treaty and it poses a frustrating impact on a general mind. According to Empiricism, the act of knowing comes from sense impressions and ideas, while ideas are copies of impressions reflected on mind, either in the past or the present. The concept of self-knowledge is denied in this view of philosophy except its acceptance as an interpretation of an internal perception. In such fashion, introspection is an internal perception according to such view, depended upon sense experiences in like manner of external perception. But, in such explanation, it necessarily demands equal valuation of internal as well as external perceptions so long they are dependent upon sense experiences and thereby admit to have a knower and a subject of knowledge to facilitate the fact occurring of who is experiencing and what is being experienced. Thus, when knower attempts to know the subject of knowledge, an introspection necessarily demands two distinct entities within one mind—one of knower and another of a subject of knowledge. In other words, it requires existence of two qualified identities embodies in a unitary self—a self that is introspecting and another that is introspected. Empiricism also presupposes an existence of unitary content and concept of mind in its theoretical postulations. Thereby if the knower is different from the subject of knowledge in case of introspection, it denies such presupposition of unitary concept of a mind on which the Empiricism fundamentally stands. This only leads to one conclusion that the self loses its identity, as a whole, while introspecting as it cannot either mutate into twosome or can explain to have introspection while not doing so, according to this view of philosophy; this leads to a further crisis of a human mind for sacrificing one part of the self—either the knowing part or the knowable part.
However, according to the view of Rationalism, human mind is capable of having such introspection for holding innate faculties inherently structured in form for analysing, conceptualising and subsequent reflections of such concepts dependent upon sense experiences so analysed within. It adequately satisfies the question and possibility of such introspection to happen in thought process.
This, although, offers suiting explanation to a primary supposition of having introspection valid and possible in human mind, the secondary supposition concerning its relevance in human being remains unanswered. This can only be reasonably answered through ontological explanations of philosophy, which presuppose the very existence of knowledge in this world of experience. And, if knowledge is there, and the knower is there, there must be a causality between such two existences and thus, there is relevance of the act of knowing. This metaphysical relevance justifies the urge for knowing in a more acceptable way than in any other explanations. In that way, I also satiated myself in accepting the relevance of introspection of mind.
The question did not seek much refuge to any academic analysis, either scientific or philosophical, for it is I, who is in the deciding position so far it relates to exercising of choice and free will. This did not demand theories of causal relationship to intervene much for justifying causal dependence of exercising such choice on sense experiences already imprinted upon the human mind. While it is an admitted fact that human mind, in its intellectual form and concept, does not bind itself in exercising its free wills, it cannot be denied that there lives a definite and cognitive reason behind such exercise and also in going for a particular choice amongst many, if such thought process abides in a rational manner. Thus, in my case too, even if I am to accept that it is my free will that demands my mind to go for introspection, it does not offer a satisfactory answer to a rational mind in support of going for that without a definite and cognitive reason behind such behaviour. And, I am bound to answer this question, else I will be left to be perceived only as a human being bereft of any rational application of mind.
If I were to analyse this pertinent question, I would only find myself with two reasons cognitively apparent in mind that adequately justifies my going for it. Yes, primarily, it is my age, which for so long has experienced varied impressions of this world and graduated on its wane towards eventual perishing, must assess its own worth in contributing against its expenses on existence. The valuation is just necessary for to suffice its existence being unquestionable. Nothing can exist if it is not valued to its worth—irrespective of the fact of its being losing or gaining or being passively neutral. This primary cause to expose it before a thorough examination is evident from its not having any contrary logic existing. The secondary reason, although it is also dependent upon the primary reason but has a distinctly perceivable face independent of the primary reason. This is for the death—the fact of ceasing to be—is so imperatively present in human mind that it leaves a permanent craving in itself to leave a legacy when it really ceases to be. Time being a very temporary companion in validity of a human mind ( in more so, of a human soul ) that it necessary commands human mind to go for justifying its impact on future prospects of mankind, and the urge of leaving a legacy naturally flows subterranean unless once in later age one discovers its tremendous potency in directing mind to go for introspection and social reactions to such introspection while validating its essence of being for a longer period when the mind ceases to act further. It is more of a duty than of a pleasure or pain to seek refuge to such yearning for leaving a legacy as human soul remains the most precious gift that a human body carries along its phase of experiencing in this beautiful world. Thus, the cause is pure and simple only to go for an active assessment of mind’s rational validity before the world that has so generously offered it to flourish, enrich, and contribute without demanding anything in return. It is, thus, a free will whether one opts for its social valuation or not; but, in its rational expression, mind can only go for that—introspection and reflecting such introspection on the social mirror. This is why I yearn to leave an imprint on such mirror for its valuation while I remain innocently apart from its material or spiritual contributions towards the mankind, whether beneficial, or detrimental, either to some or many, in whatever degree and fashion. In essentially doing so, with all its failing or success, a human mind can attain what it feels to be aware of one just deed that is to be done. And, I do it for this satisfying awareness of such deed.
For the last question, though it did have an agreeable answer to my own questioning, I leave this for the readers to imagine and perceive as if I do not do this then the very object of leaving an imprint upon the social mirror that my mind yearns to attain will be left with utter frustration.
Here is, thus, the concept of “Introspective Mind” arose and here it is for it has found a beautiful social face to view its ripples of reactions it create upon the social spectacle and here is, thus, a blog to find place before the wide and critical assessment of readers with enough reasons explained hereinbefore. I leave only with an unexplained part for the last question to let you be aware of an introspective mind, if I am to be sure of your interest to be aware of it at all.
