Basic Reality, Part 3: Objects in Subjective Space

Before launching into the topic of what it is that exists in subjective space, there is still a little more to discuss yet.

Is introspection rational, or is it irrational?

Introspection is necessary for certain functions such as understanding ones own motives for doing a certain thing. Or for understanding emotional baggage carried from earlier times.

But is there a subjective region where it is dangerous to tread, where a pit of delusion and irrationality awaits from which there is no escape? This seems to be a major obstacle to some, who refuse to venture beyond the material world (or do they?) Is it possible to differentiate the rational from the emotional, the irrational, the fraudulent delusion? To answer this we must know the source of our rationality and its full capability.

The rules for rational thought can be thought of as hierarchical, with the most fundamental being the First Principles. These principles, along with the other rules, as well as logic, mathematics, language all exist purely in the subjective range. While their essence can be coded into written material symbols which convey a (mostly) common meaning, the principles themselves remain outside the material domain. These principles have no mass, occupy no space, have no length width or height, exhibit no reflectivity, refractivity, conductivity, resistivity, nor do they degrade with time, or change phase or form. They are completely non-material.

While we easily show that material, contingent factoids are never "truth", we can also show that the First Principles are true. We can also show that if they were not true, rational thought, mathematics and language could not exist in an ordered fashion; life would be chaotic if it could exist at all. Truth then, exists only in the non-material realm, in subjective space, if it exists at all.

How is this shown? Given that empirical and forensic scientific approaches cannot apply to subjective space, how can we prove anything at all about it? Well it is done intellectually, using the innate human faculty of discernment... just the same as scientific judgments are made on material entities.

Along with a subjective space, every individual is endowed a priori with the faculty of discernment. Whether this faculty is hard wired or is transcendent is not the issue; the issue is that it exists, and it can be used by each individual in an orderly assessment of his environment, whether the environment is either objective or subjective. Science is the orderly use of discernment faculties to evaluate the objective, material environment. Introspection is the orderly use of discernment faculties to evaluate the subjective environment.

Discernment can be described as having the following elements: apprehension, memory, comparison, discrimination, judgment, comprehension. By using these, one can evaluate any entity for its rational or irrational content. If an entity fails the First Principle of Non-Contradiction, then it is non-coherent: paradoxical. This applies to the subjective realm just as it does the objective, material realm.

So we each have an innate tool with which to analyze the entities we encounter in the subjective realm. There is no reason to fall victim to irrationality there, any more than to fall victim to a pseudo-scientific claim in the objective, material realm. The weapon against being the prey of irrationality is the same for both spaces: the internal, innate faculty of rational discernment. The validity of the analysis is also the same for subjective entities as for objective entities: rationalization is fatal to rational belief in either space.

And now (finally) for the possible objects – let’s call them entities – that might be encountered in subjective space. At this point I’ll just list a few, to start the search; after all, your search will be your very own subjective search, won’t it?

I think that for the sake of understanding what the meaning of rational thinking is, one should comprehend the First Principles… first. After all, everyone has the right to reject any and/or all subjective entities as fallacious constructs of the human imagination. The validity of the First Principles, and their use, is of paramount importance to a rational search. So one must understand their validity.

After that is accomplished, the following questions (out of myriads) seem to surface rapidly. First, is there really Truth in the subjective domain? Next, is there a subjective complement to the objective principle of “cause and effect” in the subjective domain? Can “absolutes” be avoided in rational thought? Does subjective space extend outside or beyond the human nervous system? From where did our subjective space and rational discernment faculties come to exist?

There are many more questions for the individual introspecteur to pursue, the questions above are possibly common to most people, but then again maybe not. Possibly the most fractious question will be, is there a non-material mind? And one more: is there wisdom?

Next: Addressing the rationality of subjective issues.