The role of perspective in Enlightenment

© Daniel Webber 2003

ABSTRACT

This essay challenges the conventional view that the division between spiritual and physical realities is a spatial relation of "inner" versus "outer" realities. The aim is to let the division show itself as it always and already is, by focusing on the interplay between one's perspective and one's immediate surroundings. Considering that the way we see our surroundings influences how we think, a new structure emerges, giving rise to a holistic interpretation of reality, without the need to abandon duality outright.


EPIGRAPH

The truth could simply be something that everyone sees and knows already, something that we all live with, sleep with, and wake up to, and die as a result of - the truth could be something so obvious and familiar, but which no one has uttered. It could be there, alive, dormant, visible to all like a white mountain, like an ugly song, like a bleeding face, but no one has uttered its existence, no one has spoken its reality, no one has really seen it, burned in it, agonised in its suppuration, and finally cried it out. And while it lives, uncried out, it devours us, this unacceptable truth that we accept in silence.

Ben Okri - A Way of Being Free


But physical man walks in the element of time even as he walks in mud, dragging his feet and his true nature.

Ten Bulls, Zen Flesh Zen Bones


CONTENTS

The Door
Introduction
The link between presence and perspective
How space compromises presence
Depth cues
Temporality
The projection of thought
Concept + Context
The problem defined
Motion
Time is an illusion
The solution
The essence of reality
Speed
Fluid forms
The whirlpool
Growth
Change
Conclusion
Immediacy
Subject / Object
Meditation
Fluid versus spatial realities


THE DOOR

When we still the mind, we become aware of a door forced shut by thoughts. As if by magic, the door opens to reveal the spiritual realm. We desire to enter it, but soon discover that we can't. This frustrates us, because it seems that the physical and spiritual worlds are incompatible. But this is not true! We are the door, and our task is to be open, so the spiritual world can enter the physical world.


The link between presence and perspective

The point of departure is that one's perspective emerges from those movements in the scenery that are attributed to one's own movement. In essence, the mind uses these movements for the sake of determining one's moving perspective. Moreover, since the correlation between these movements and one's own motion is immediate, the relationship between them contributes to one's sense of presence.



How space compromises presence

However, the perception of space dulls this sense of immediacy, insofar as one's perspective becomes a tool for seeing around objects. Drawing on Heidegger's Tool Theory, the intentionality of the movements used to determine depth is absorbed into the action being performed (ie. seeing depth) and the "tool" withdraws as a separate object, becoming "transparent", as a result. However, this particular "separate object" also serves as our link to the present moment. So, in effect, we sacrifice our own presence in order to give presence to objects.



Depth cues

We use a variety of cues to perceive depth; motion is only one of many. One of the most powerful cues to depth, especially at short distances, is binocular disparity, the difference in the images received by each eye. Additionally, we make use of accommodation, the thickening and thinning of the lens of the eye to better focus on near and far objects respectively. Additionally, we use a number of "pictorial" cues to depth, such as the fact that nearer objects occlude further objects (occlusion), nearer objects are larger than further objects (relative size) and are further from the horizon (relative position).



Temporality

Although motion is not the only means by which depth is interpreted, it distinguishes itself from all other depth cues by virtue of its temporality. Depth variations revealed by motion are determined across time. The mind determines the shape of an object, or an empty space, based on how its appearance changes over time. However, the changes in appearance only make sense to the extent that they are relative to the observer's perspective. So, the observer's perspective is effectively harnessed by the process of determining depth through motion. It becomes a "tool" for determining depth and, as a result, our sense of immediacy is dulled.



The projection of thought

This has a profound affect on how we experience reality. However, it also serves as the basis upon which we interpret the world, since the mechanism for perceiving space is adopted by the mind to project thought. Our perception of space serves as a model for concept formation by distinguishing a space from the planes that surround it. The result is a thought structure in which a concept is set in a context.



Concept + Context

Accordingly, the concept of space is characterized by the difference between a plane and space. The planes set the context for the idea of space. The same is true of a plane. The edges of a plane provide a context by showing the line where the plane ceases to be a plane. The difference between a line and a plane is what the concept of a plane is based on. To visualize a line, we give it ends. Each end of the line is a point and together they serve as the context for the line. They show the difference between a line and a point, and in this way they define the point at which a line ceases to be a line.



The problem defined

The spatially derived model of reality is thus built up of a point, a line, a plane, space and time: a point having no dimensions, time having four. An implication of their being numbered is that successive dimensions build on lesser dimensions; for example, a line as a series of points. So, each dimension can be 'placed' within dimensions higher than itself, but not lower than itself. However, while this is clear for each of the dimensions leading up to the three dimensions of space, it is not so clear how time 'contains' its lesser dimensions.



Motion

As I see it, we misinterpret motion and, as a result, interpret reality in terms of time and space. We see motion in relation to the space it occurs in. Space provides a sense of motionlessness - a sort of reference to show how motion differs to it. For example, we typically regard motion as a change of position, a reference to something fixed. But as a consequence, motion is seen as a movement in space when it is actually a movement of space - a space in motion.



Time is an illusion

Since this is how we experience our surroundings, this is what is internalized, to re-emerge as the thought structure for the concept of time. We subsequently understand the passing of time to be in relation to the present moment, as if the 'now' has no duration. We supposedly experience a string of nows. However, it is only for sake of the concept that the passage of time differs to the present. The contrast does not reflect reality, but the setting of a context.



The solution

What this interpretation of time fails to take into account is that successive dimensions merge. They are not discrete. Each dimension carries within it the dimensions lesser than it. The solution, outlined below, is to remove the concept of time and replace it with motion.



The essence of reality

The most basic relationship the observer has with his surroundings is the registering of his own presence. This is not a spatial relation but, rather, one of motion: movements in the scenery correlating with the observer's own motion. If we use this as a model for conceptualisation, the object becomes fluid rather than spatial, with the difference becoming one with itself. So, instead of focusing on how the dimensions differ to each other, as with concepts modelled on space, we should consider how they differ in themselves. This reveals that the essence of a point is its location, the essence of a line is its alignment, the essence of a plane is its form, and the essence of a space is its density.



Speed

In considering how a motion differs in itself, one is tempted to describe it in linear terms: i.e. the path it follows. But this is not its essential quality, since a line has just one dimension, not four. Neither can we narrow it down to its location, form or density, though that which moves certainly has these characteristics too. But all these things being equal (imagine two identical movements side by side) there remains one characteristic which belongs solely to motion: its speed. This is how motion differs in itself - making speed the essence of motion.



Fluid forms

The variable of speed is beyond the ordinary conception of motion, so we tend to regard it as inconsequential. But motion in the sense of speed is precisely how it ties in to reality. This can be observed in the shape of a wave. It is not simply that the form would not exist without motion, but that the variable of speed determines the variety of curves in a wave. A wave behind a rock in a stream is a good example of this principle: the water flows through the wave while the form expresses the various speeds at which the water is moving.



The whirlpool

The whirlpool is a particularly good example because the dimensions are seen to be variables linked in a unified system. There is the alignment of its axis, the form of its surface, the matter it draws inward and, since a vortex rotates progressively faster toward its centre, the variable of speed. Placing a tiny pointer in a whirlpool can show the part played by motion. The pointer remains parallel to its original alignment, despite being carried around and around. This indicates that motion, rather than content, determines the form.



Growth

Having reinstated motion as the fourth dimension, it becomes apparent that time is also a generalization of change. Just as we tend to regard motion in terms of its lesser characteristics, so too do we have an inferior perception of that other form of change called growth. Since growth depends on but is more than motion, it might be the 5th dimension. And what is its essence? How does growth differ in relation to itself? Wouldn't that be through evolution?



Change

Of course, it must not be overlooked that the dimensions are not separated in reality. They exist as interrelated aspects of the whole. But, to understand how they interrelate requires that each dimension of change be distinguishable. Subordinating them to the concept of time ignores the crucial point that each dimension finds its expression in change and that change is, moreover, what holds them together.



Conclusion

The concept of time fails to account for the diversity of change, since the division of time and space implies that change is restricted to the 4th dimension. However, assuming that change is the very essence of reality, rather than a mere aspect of it, it follows that the essence of each dimension is how that dimension changes. By setting each dimension in the context of change, the concept of time subsequently loses its significance as one of the dimensions, as such, separated from space.



Immediacy

The key to understanding a timeless now is in the perception of one's own motion. This is how the mind places itself in the world. As one moves along, one sees that the scenery changes accordingly. These movements connect us with the present moment because the correlation between them and our own motion is immediate. However, in order to realize the world as spatial, the mind has to use the perception of its own motion, such that it becomes a tool for seeing the depth of space. In effect, this outward shift of awareness projects the observer's own presence into the world.



Subject / Object

When we sense the correlation between apparent movements in the scenery and our own movements, subject and object merge. However, when we use the resulting sense of presence to determine the depth of space before us, subject and object become separated. So, whereas the conscious mind understands itself as being separate from its surroundings, the subconscious mind is intimately connected with its surroundings, since it perceives its own presence through the changing appearance of its surroundings.



Meditation

Through meditation it is possible to retract one's awareness from the world, and in so doing dissolve the division between one's perspective and the object of one's attention, such that one's very perspective becomes the object. Then, one does not see the surroundings so much as the movements in the surroundings that indicate one's own motion. One sees the world as the subconscious sees it and the here-and-now becomes palpable.



Fluid versus spatial realities

The division between physical and spiritual realities is not properly accommodated by the spatial distinction of "inner" and "outer" realities. Firstly, one's perspective emerges from the changing appearance of one's surroundings. And secondly, the so-called "outer" reality only gains its spatial character from the projection of one's own presence. The so-called inner and outer worlds are thus intertwined within our consciousness. What emerges from this discussion, however, is a distinction between "spatial" and "fluid" realities. Properly understood, this division shows that space is in fact 'imagined' and the nature of transcendence is entirely 'out there'.

The tragedy is that we seem to get trapped in the spatial world view, and try to find our way on purely spatial terms. We become materialistic, possessive, self-righteous and so on and so forth. The problem is that you can't really share space, because space is, by definition, divided. The fluid realm is in you, whether you appreciate it or not. However, by recognising it, bringing it into your awareness and nurturing a familiarity with it, you can transcend the spatial world view and discover that what we can share (and cherish) is this time together.

www.webber.net.au

Yes, yes, yes

http://www.closertogod.net/main/thoughts/s...imeVsChange.htm

I think that I stole that brane from a BBC/Horizon website,shh! should probably give them a credit.

Can M-theory fit without time being the 4th dimension?