Part XLI
- Mind and Matter Part 1
Is mind matter, or is it separate from matter,
or does it matter in our pursuit of happiness?
Such questions have troubled philosophers as
well as psychologists from time immemorial. Western
philosophers give credit to Rene Descartes (17th
Century) for proposing that mind is not physical
matter, since it has no spatial (or physical)
dimensions, and it is identified with consciousness
and self-awareness. Even though it is not physical
matter, it closely interacts with physical matter,
particularly with the physical body. For, it
is noted that the 'mental moods' of passions
such as love, hate, jealousy, fear, happiness,
sorrow, etc, and sometimes even strong emotionally
rooted beliefs, can have notable and significant
interactions at body level. Mental depressions
can affect physical health. Psychosomatic diseases
are common. Addictions and drugs can bring about
mental imbalance and strong mental disturbances
can generate poisonous chemicals in the body.
Thus mind and matter appear to be interconnected,
since each affects the other. What exactly is
the relation between the two is not known although
many theories have been proposed. There is a
theory called 'Substance Dualism' that states
that mind is an independently existing substance
separate from the physical matter constituting
the body (the brain), but its substantive is
not known. There is another theory called 'Property
Dualism' which states that the substance of the
mind is not different from physical matter, though
its properties are different. There is also a
theory called 'Monism' that states that body
and mind are ontologically the same. Thus many ‘-isms’ have
been proposed, each postulating the relation
between the mind and matter. From the clinical
side, it is evident that mind can be affected
by certain chemicals and addiction to drugs has
become a world-wide problem. In the dualistic
models, starting from that of Descartes, mind
is considered as 'consciousness' or 'self-awareness'
or at least 'somehow' related to consciousness.
Hence mind-matter duality is ultimately reduced
to consciousness-matter duality. The current
western thinking is that consciousness 'somehow'
arises in matter in just the same way as the
mind operates in the physical body. Many of these
concepts are really not new and are borrowed
from age-old philosophies, but are presented
in an acceptable form to be marketable as new
theories.
From a Vedantic perspective (philosophical truths
discussed in the end part of the Vedas called
Upanishads), mind is considered to be subtle
matter different from gross physical matter.
The subtle part of the gross food that we eat
sustains the mind. Hence the food that we eat
can also affect the mind. For example, mind can
be made be aggressive, passive or lethargic,
etc, depending on the type of food we eat. To
enhance the contemplativeness of the mind certain
foods, called sAttvika, are recommended, while
certain others - rAjasika and tAmasika - are
to be avoided. Similarly, for the mind to be
active or aggressive, e.g. for warriors, rAjasika
foods are recommended. Thus it was recognized
that gross matter does affect the subtle mind
and its properties.
Consciousness and mind are considered separate
by some philosophers while others consider ‘conscious
mind’, where the mind is conscious of objects
as in the waking state, to be equated to consciousness.
It is recognized, therefore, that there is an
interrelationship between (or among) consciousness,
mind and matter. What exactly is the relation
between the two or the three is not known, although
there are many theories and postulates. A person
can be made unconscious by chloroform or placed
into different degrees of unconsciousness by
addictive drugs like morphine. Is consciousness
a special property of matter that arises when
certain conditions are met, or is it the other
way, i.e. does matter arise in consciousness?
The former is more acceptable for physical or
material scientists, but the latter may be closure
to the truth.
Is there really matter separate from the conscious
mind? There is a philosophy called Idealism,
which maintains that the mind is all that exists,
and the external world is either a mental projection
or an illusion created by the mind. (This theory
of Idealism, which is somewhat similar to the
vij~nAna vAda philosophy of Buddhism, is different
from Advaita Vedanta, although there are some
who vehemently argue that they are the same.)
For the mind to exist, there has to be a locus
for its existence, which has to be the body made
of matter. This will reduce to a circular argument
if, according the Theory of Idealism, matter
is a projection of the mind, since mind then
depends on matter while matter is a projection
of the mind.
Another important question is whether consciousness
of 'an object' or of 'the world' is different
from self-consciousness (i.e. awareness of one's
own self, where the subject itself is an object
of consciousness, i.e. I am conscious of myself).
Some Vedantins (particularly vishiShTAdvaitins)
argue that there are two types of consciousness:
one is self-consciousness and the other is object-consciousness.
These are called dharmi j~nAnam and dharma bhUta
j~nAnam, respectively. Fundamental to this classification
is that the subject, 'I', is different from the
object, 'this'. The self-consciousness (dharmi
j~nAnam) is always present, since it is intrinsic
to oneself, while the object-consciousness manifests
in a conducive environment, when there is an
object present of which one wants to be conscious.
A question that arises at this juncture is whether
I can be conscious of myself, that is self-awareness
that I am as 'I am', without having an object
of consciousness. When I am conscious of an object
'this', I am conscious that 'I' know 'this' where
the subject thought 'I' and the object thought
'this' are present simultaneously in the mind.
This subject-object duality forms an essential
ingredient of the mind. Can I have awareness
of the subject 'I' without the associated object
awareness of 'this' in the mind? If there are
no 'this' thoughts, could the mind still be called
mind? These are some fundamental philosophical
questions in trying to understand the structure
of the mind.
The above question boils down to: can the mind
operate having just subject consciousness or
self-consciousness, without simultaneously having
object consciousness? That is, does the mind
always operate in the subject-object dualistic
mode or can it have just subject alone without
an object. Can there be a thinker (subject) alone
without having thoughts (of objects) or does
the thinker ceases to exist without the thoughts
of the objects? Rene Descartes stated 'I think,
therefore I am' implying first that 'I am' is
associated with thinking faculty. Can the conscious
entity that 'I am' exist without having to think?
Since the subject-object relation arises with
the mind or in the mind, the ontological status
of each or both of them is a philosophical question
that is closely related to the analysis of the
mind.
Proceed to the next
essay.
|
