I look different. And that puzzles me. Actually, why the heck does that bother me? I reached office and was in front of the mirror – and lo, yes, I do look different.
What bothers me is that I had a neutral face in the mirror. Earlier on, I would either be smiling or some emotion would get reflected in the mirror. This time, there is no emotion. And yet, it is not even emotionless state too.
So what does it mean to face up to oneself? Who do you actually look into in the mirror? When I see myself in the mirror, who do I see? Is it me? Who is that person in the mirror that I see? And flip that question back, who is it then who stands in front of the mirror; and also sees the person in the mirror?
Physics tells me that light is both matter and wave. And the image in the mirror is a function of total internal reflection of light waves. While that explains the “image” that I see in the mirror, it does not answer my question, “who” do I see in the mirror? Now how do I know I see it? Because I experience it; and apart from the fact of seeing (a direct perception proof), I have associated feelings within.
But taking that line of logic further, we even see a mirage in a desert. We see water where none exists. The property of light waves getting totally internally reflected explains the image, but do not show the truth. So, it follows that not all that the light waves may show me the real truth. The question then is, “is what I see in the mirror, real or unreal?”
Coming back to the question of “who do I see in the mirror”, we can then explore the two answers that come to me right now: One, that there is someone out there who I see; Two, there is an image that I see. If we accept the former, then it follows that there is consciousness. Going by what we explore in the earlier paragraph, we can only be tentative about the first answer viz. there is someone out there who I see. Secondly, we have no awareness of any consciousness of the other in front of us (unlike when we meet a friend). So I leave this line of logic (rejecting it) and go to the next possible answer, “I see an image.”
Now, if I see an image, then either the person in front of the mirror is an image too (if we accept that what the mirror shows is true) or that or that it is only an apparent reality. Given that a mirage too is a function of the same phenomenon that mirror is, we can not be sure of the 100% truth of what the mirror shows. Thus, on this side of the mirror is not an image and that I who stand in front of the mirror is different from the image.
But, if that is so, then what I see in front of the mirror is only apparent. If that be so, why does it evoke feelings in me? Why does it evoke thoughts in me? This then means that the thoughts and feelings are a function of something within me and not what is there outside. Taking this at a generic level, what I see outside is actually what I am inside. This to me seems like a scientific proof (QED types). However, this poses a problem for me if I have to live my life.
Does that mean there is no conflict in the world outside; that there is no dispute, no crime, nothing that I find abhorrent? For I only see what is inside of me? If I accept the proof above, then the answer is a no. Which goes contradictory to my experience; but then how does one define, “my experience?” We will delve into that question later – at some other time. If I do not accept the proof above, in order to accept the reality of the not to pleasant aspects of life, then I negate my own existence (that is where our enquiry started off from).
So now you see, I am stuck. A colleague of mine was curious and she read this. She has this question, “Why did you think this? How did this thought come?” Actually, it helps. You see, the fact that I thought this, means that there is a being who think and feels. And that means there is consciousness (this is an assumption I make that needs to be tested). But that does not still answer the basic question and the paradox. Either ways, I am stuck for a definitive answer.
Indian philosophical schools (especially Advaita Vendanta) would solve this problem by the use of the word “maya” (neither real nor unreal), but that is a “satisfactory answer”. As per Advaita Vedanta thought, “maya” does not mean “illusion” as most people understand it. It means that a subject of enquiry is “neither real nor unreal at all moments of time”. Basically, something on which nothing “definitive” can be said. It is not the “definitive answer” which is what I seek. Or is the quest itself flawed from the beginning – for there is a search for a definitive answer of the world that exists and yet does not exist. For if the world is a mirror, then the quest could either be directed towards understanding the world; alternately, it could be directed to understanding the self.
With that I sign off for now. The task ahead is to study a few texts and check out. And with another question, “then, is there something definitive that we can talk about our self?”
What bothers me is that I had a neutral face in the mirror. Earlier on, I would either be smiling or some emotion would get reflected in the mirror. This time, there is no emotion. And yet, it is not even emotionless state too.
So what does it mean to face up to oneself? Who do you actually look into in the mirror? When I see myself in the mirror, who do I see? Is it me? Who is that person in the mirror that I see? And flip that question back, who is it then who stands in front of the mirror; and also sees the person in the mirror?
Physics tells me that light is both matter and wave. And the image in the mirror is a function of total internal reflection of light waves. While that explains the “image” that I see in the mirror, it does not answer my question, “who” do I see in the mirror? Now how do I know I see it? Because I experience it; and apart from the fact of seeing (a direct perception proof), I have associated feelings within.
But taking that line of logic further, we even see a mirage in a desert. We see water where none exists. The property of light waves getting totally internally reflected explains the image, but do not show the truth. So, it follows that not all that the light waves may show me the real truth. The question then is, “is what I see in the mirror, real or unreal?”
Coming back to the question of “who do I see in the mirror”, we can then explore the two answers that come to me right now: One, that there is someone out there who I see; Two, there is an image that I see. If we accept the former, then it follows that there is consciousness. Going by what we explore in the earlier paragraph, we can only be tentative about the first answer viz. there is someone out there who I see. Secondly, we have no awareness of any consciousness of the other in front of us (unlike when we meet a friend). So I leave this line of logic (rejecting it) and go to the next possible answer, “I see an image.”
Now, if I see an image, then either the person in front of the mirror is an image too (if we accept that what the mirror shows is true) or that or that it is only an apparent reality. Given that a mirage too is a function of the same phenomenon that mirror is, we can not be sure of the 100% truth of what the mirror shows. Thus, on this side of the mirror is not an image and that I who stand in front of the mirror is different from the image.
But, if that is so, then what I see in front of the mirror is only apparent. If that be so, why does it evoke feelings in me? Why does it evoke thoughts in me? This then means that the thoughts and feelings are a function of something within me and not what is there outside. Taking this at a generic level, what I see outside is actually what I am inside. This to me seems like a scientific proof (QED types). However, this poses a problem for me if I have to live my life.
Does that mean there is no conflict in the world outside; that there is no dispute, no crime, nothing that I find abhorrent? For I only see what is inside of me? If I accept the proof above, then the answer is a no. Which goes contradictory to my experience; but then how does one define, “my experience?” We will delve into that question later – at some other time. If I do not accept the proof above, in order to accept the reality of the not to pleasant aspects of life, then I negate my own existence (that is where our enquiry started off from).
So now you see, I am stuck. A colleague of mine was curious and she read this. She has this question, “Why did you think this? How did this thought come?” Actually, it helps. You see, the fact that I thought this, means that there is a being who think and feels. And that means there is consciousness (this is an assumption I make that needs to be tested). But that does not still answer the basic question and the paradox. Either ways, I am stuck for a definitive answer.
Indian philosophical schools (especially Advaita Vendanta) would solve this problem by the use of the word “maya” (neither real nor unreal), but that is a “satisfactory answer”. As per Advaita Vedanta thought, “maya” does not mean “illusion” as most people understand it. It means that a subject of enquiry is “neither real nor unreal at all moments of time”. Basically, something on which nothing “definitive” can be said. It is not the “definitive answer” which is what I seek. Or is the quest itself flawed from the beginning – for there is a search for a definitive answer of the world that exists and yet does not exist. For if the world is a mirror, then the quest could either be directed towards understanding the world; alternately, it could be directed to understanding the self.
With that I sign off for now. The task ahead is to study a few texts and check out. And with another question, “then, is there something definitive that we can talk about our self?”
No comments:
Post a Comment