The increasingly dominant space occupied by ideas in the lives of post-language human beings is a distinct hallmark of our species. The world we have created and in which we live, both within and outside of ourselves, is essentially a product of our ideas. It is not difficult to observe today that individuals and their lives are run primarily by their ‘ideas’. Our mundane day to day activities, the battles we fight, the conflicts and conspiracies we engage in, the good, moral and ethical acts we perform, in short, almost all our actions have some underlying idea or set of ideas as a driving force. Ideas, as a mental product and process both, have been viewed and understood in numerous ways in Philosophy and Science. There can be and are many sources of our ideas apart from the intellect. To name a few, one’s temperament, habits, belief system, prejudices, compulsions, half-baked thinking, dreams, imagination, perceptions and the emotional process. The important thing is that in the mind of the individual there has to be a believed connection and equation of that idea with reality on the basis of which he is willing to go ahead and do that idea. Of course this projected equation and its consequences could in fact be a formula for disaster (which is many times the case) but this is how the ‘idea’ works in an individual’s head. Generally speaking, when an idea comes in the mind of an individual s/he believes that it is a reality (or can become one) and based on this belief s/he makes a plan of doing that idea. In the case of intellectual ideas (involving complex abstractions, concepts and semantic processing) the internal equation with reality and the plan of doing become far more complex, involving more factors and aspects but the underlying direction of the idea process is the same—the believed connection with reality leading to doing or implementation. Before we go any further into our exploration of the human idea process it would be pertinent to compare it with the operation of ideas in animals. The benefit of such a comparison is two-fold. One, when one is trying to understand a complex phenomenon and there is a vast area of unknown and problem of tangibility then looking at a simpler predecessor of that phenomenon can provide useful new knowledge and facilitate tangibility. Two, a comparison will provide us with a clearer estimate and understanding of the expanse and complexity of the contemporary human idea process and the problem it is confronting today. 

​

In animals the operation of ideas is fairly simple, linear and consequently predictable. Their ideas are a product of easily recognizable processes and steps. There is the basic need program based on a few simple needs, then there is data coming from sensory organs, which goes into the software that evaluates that data in accordance with the need program, and finally a program which executes what has been found by the earlier software processing about what is needed (not needed) and can be acquired (or not acquired). It is through these simple linear steps and processes that ideas are made in animals, and these are nonverbal and simple ideas or rather mental images (nonconceptual and closer to sensory representations of environment) based upon which the animal then makes its plan of doing and carries out that doing. Coming back to the human idea process, when the verbal mind arises after mature (written) language the process of idea production goes on to another plane of operation. It becomes possible now to have free floating ideas and that too in unlimited quantity. Once a substantial collection of words is available to man he can use any combination of them to produce an idea. So there is a huge explosion in the capability of producing ideas compared to the animal. Some animals have more developed perceptual capabilities than us but our idea producing capability gets enhanced almost a million times more.  

 

A consequence of this explosion is that the idea production process spreads like a virus into all our other mental processes and domains; emotions, temperament, habits, dreams, fears, desires or any combination of these states of mind. One can produce ideas about any data by getting that data processed (not via conscious intelligent deliberation) through any other mental program instead of just the need processing program, like in animals. Instead of needs the new data process, existing primarily in the form of words, gets connected to any of these mental states and processes; desire, fears, prejudice software, belief system, one’s ego, malice or generosity. Thus we acquire the freedom to produce all types of ideas. This is the price we pay for having a virtually uncontrolled and unlimited ability to produce ideas. 

 

A critical consequence of the above process has been that the logical evolutionary function of ideas became a casualty. In the minds of animals (and even pre-verbal man) ideas were supposed to establish clear connections between the different layers and steps of software pertaining to perception, processing and execution, so as to enable the individual specimen to connect to reality in all these stages. And then respond and interact with the outside world on that basis. But with verbal ideas we find this connectivity going haywire. It explodes like a bomb in all directions. Thus, one can produce innumerable ideas, swear by them, kill for them and get killed for them. There is nothing that one cannot do with ideas. The problem arises when, unlike animal ideas, a large bulk of our ideas become disconnected from actual reality whereas in our minds i.e. our perception, thinking, feeling, we start equating them with reality and operating on that basis. Due to this new (unprecedented) situation we are all the time on the threshold of anarchy and many times we also cross it. 

 

Today the shape of our personality is made by the anarchy of our ideas; the form they acquire in our thinking (when we falsely equate them with reality) and then in our doing, has made us what we should not have become. One can see how the idea process has given rise to many layers and dimensions of contradictions, distortions and consequent disintegration within an individual and in the world outside of him. So even by the lowest of standards the current state and shape of human personality based on the existing idea process is neither appropriate nor a model to be emulated and idealized. A serious analysis of contemporary human personality and the life it has and is continuing to create for itself and socially will bear this out. Thus we need to observe and see ourselves in this light and at this stage of our evolution. And then as a specie turn away from this anarchy of our ideas and harness and work out a grammar for them wherein we intelligently blend the nonverbal with the verbal ideas and reshape our personality on that basis. We will be able to do this intelligently because our intelligence will now include an understanding of the idea process, its functions, the need for harnessing it and then the incredible potential of harnessed ideas.         

 

How the existing hybrid reality of our subjectivity makes us equate our ideas with reality; how to intelligently address our hybrid subjectivity and harness our idea process     

​

If we are to understand how and why we equate our ideas with objective reality, as discussed above, then we need to understand the composition and functioning of our existing subjectivity, which is the author of this equation. Our existing subjectivity is a hybrid of two components/processes; the mature reactive programmed mental system and a very immature nascent emerging intelligent system, based on post-language intellectual intelligence, which is stored and processed verbally. The former is a complex of developed mental processes (which we also share with developed animals) which include elaborate layers of programs; perceptual, emotional, classification, problem solving and execution. These have been designed and shaped in evolution by the changing needs of living forms in their struggle to survive in hostile, alien and competitive environments. The evolutionary changes in this programmed system also took place to meet the changing requirements of survival in a shifting (from time to time and place to place) adversarial and competitive environment. Our mature programmed system and its mental programs are a sophisticated and advanced embodiment of this generic character of the living programmed systems. A very important characteristic of these programmed systems is that they are necessarily reactive; they respond to existing reality by reacting to it. Which means they basically respond directly to a clear and simple perception of objective reality and not ideas as a separate process apart from that perception. Ideas become a dominant part of the programmed process after language. 

 

With the inception of intellectual intelligence and an elaborate idea based mental structure based on it, the second basic component of our subjectivity is evolved. It is this component which makes our subjectivity a hybrid. This intelligence includes both an elaborate intellect based thought process, which starts becoming intelligent about all processes in Nature and corresponding feeling and emotional processes, whose quality and quantity is thousand times more than in advanced animals. The enormous expansion of this intelligence in post-civilization man exceeds the limits of perceptual capabilities because it starts drawing inferences and then doing experimentation (which extends the world of perceptual reality) and going towards producing elaborate knowledge (both abstract and practical and primarily on the verbal plane). This is the stage when man starts making the equation between objective reality and the expanded reach of his idea based intelligence and operating on that basis. To understand how this happens we need to unravel the micro mechanics and functioning of our hybrid subjectivity, especially its idea based intellectual intelligence component. We need to take note that the emerging latter part of our subjectivity is inevitably capable of malfunctioning, i.e. functioning internally with reference to its reactive programmed system instead of objective reality. Where it views this internal reactive system not as objective reality but as an objectively valid private subjective system. The illusion of the objective validity of the subjective is created because in the mature programmed systems the reactive system was directly connected to objective reality, whether external or internal, which gave it its ancient and established validity. Thus when an individual’s ideas start feeding off (or taking input from) his existing reactive programmed system it gives him the mental experience of referring to an objectively valid reference point, whereas, in reality, it is in the hybrid (mix of objective and subjective) state. So that input is taken out of its context. More so, because the reactive programmed process operates in terms of micro processes, which is its limitation, whereas ideas have a much wider range in terms of processes. This means the idea process has the capability of going far beyond the reactive programmed process. Thus our ideas while moving on a macro process dimension refer to a micro process dimension, which they borrow from our subjective programmed system. The above is the mixing up that occurs within our minds and is the causation of what we have to live with within ourselves—our contemporary hybrid subjectivity and its idea process. It is a very complex subjectivity which has all the appearances of being a very developed intelligence but at the same time has all the infections and problems of derivative programmed processes, which are essentially reactive and micro process response systems. This in turn implies that the two elements of this hybrid subjectivity are of uneven evolutionary states; one is mature and the other is emerging and consequently immature. 

In the course of civilization there have been many factors (ideas and actual circumstances) that have influenced the making, development and functioning of our uneven and complex hybrid subjectivity, but one philosophical construct needs special mention for its critical foundational role not only in the making of contemporary subjectivity but also its constraints and problems. That construct is ‘Existentialism’, which emerged in modern times, after the visible decline and decadence of the European Renaissance. 

 

The intensely narcissistic and self-centered characteristic of contemporary human subjectivity owes its roots to the core concepts and ideas formulated and developed in the works of Existentialist thinkers like Sartre, Heidegger and their precursors, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. Existentialist thought recognizes objective existence (apart from the subjective) or an ‘environment’ and its material and social categories and also asserts its primacy but at the same time trivializes its relevance in the quest of an individual to understand and define his subjective self through his choice and commitment to do so. Consequently individual subjectivity, as it exists, becomes the primary focus of any inquiry into the human condition and any proposed changes in it. The individual subjectivity according to this construct exists on its own (in an abandoned state as Sartre puts it) and has to make its own choices for acting in its time and environment without resorting to anything other than itself (no God or human nature). Man has to therefore become ‘authentic’, (another theme in existentialism) or true to himself in the sense of realizing his true human self through a constant seeking of some goal outside of him and taking sole responsibility for it. It could be some form of liberation or special achievement. 

​

Now the idea of responsibility of the individual for choosing his response to reality at a given time, which includes the fact that his choice and responsibility is not confined to himself but is a choice he makes on behalf of all men or mankind (as Sartre proposes) brings in a kind of ‘socialist morality’ to it. This concept seems like an implant because it is pure idealism and has no objective basis. To us the making of a clear and serious choice and a responsible commitment (both individually and socially) while experiencing and continuously living in a state of dread, boredom, alienation, absurdity, and nothingness is to say the least, a paradox. A corroboration of this can be found through a deeper and serious observation of the thinking and doing (in terms of the choices made and implemented) that practically unfolded and manifested in human individual and social existence as a result of accepting, and adopting these Existentialist ideas/concepts. In our opinion, a serious problem or flaw in this Existentialist approach to man and the human condition is that it views and confines reality to a micro process in the moment. It surgically and artificially restricts to one micro process or aspect of reality (human subjectivity) whereas in the proper dialectical view of reality one would see it in its fuller gamut. At least intellectually one would provide in one’s mind for a 360 degree dimension of reality and without a fixed diameter. Due to this flaw when this construct degenerates and reaches the stage of contemporary man then it glorifies the moment and not even reality and forgets all responsibility; it actually gives rise to primacy of moment to moment and irresponsibility on the part of the individual. We can observe this today both within and outside of us. And that is why in hindsight we can say that this concept of individual and social responsibility was nothing more than ‘socialist morality’, which never had any basis in concrete reality. 

 

Given this situation, if an individual living in present times were to make a choice to connect to reality rather than an idea, then he would be connecting to the macro process of reality. While focusing on micro aspects of reality he would be aware that he is connecting to reality only to the extent to which he has been able to identify, cognize and comprehend the micro aspects in a dynamic relationship with macro reality. This is how the individual will be able to break free from this basic equation in his mind between objective reality and his ideas, which has been the root cause of his flawed hybrid subjectivity and its unending problems and consequences.

 

The distinction and contradiction between reality of facts and reality of ideas; how reality of ideas can come in harmony with reality of facts

​

A panoramic view of the pre- and post-human idea process phase in Nature and its dialectic, reveals a duality in it. On the one hand exists a reality of facts and on the other hand, a reality of ideas. The former consists of processes and their products like objects or things existing without the human cognitive process coming into the picture. Which means no attempt is made to intervene through cognizing or measuring these processes and objects. The only capability of intervention that exists is within the process itself, arising out of interaction between different objective facts. Where these objective facts are directly derived from or by-products of the fundamental fact of Nature, which is its dynamic Universal Logic Process. 

​

Once mental processes emerge as another fact in Nature then arises another capability of intervention within the process of Nature; the capability to intervene through ideas, which then becomes another reality apart from the reality of facts. Ideas are a product of the capability of mental processes to make cognitive images and then process them through various other mental processes. Through this processing mental processes produce a hybrid reality in the form of a hybrid (verbal and nonverbal representation) image or picture of existing reality, partly cognized (as a static image of some moment) and partly mentally produced (as a developed image of reality built within and by mental processes to supplement the cognitive image). And then use this hybrid reality to create a projected reality, in the form of a series of mental (not sensory) pictures, of what would be the reality according to mental processes. This is the reality of ideas as a new and unprecedented thing in Nature. So we find Nature producing a reality in the form of mental processes which in the fullness of time becomes capable of producing another variety of reality, i.e. projected reality in the form of ideas. To sum up the above, the reality of facts is a direct product of the Unified Logic Process while the reality of ideas is an indirect product; a product of that product of the Unified Logic Process, which has the capability of now creating another reality in terms of projected reality. It is evident and logical that these two realities will not be identical; there are going to be variations between them. So they are bound to come in collision with each other. Let us see how and why Nature has produced a process (mental processes) which creates an alternate reality (of ideas) which is bound to come in collision with the reality of facts and produce a dialectic of contradiction.

​

If we carefully go over the hitherto trajectory of Nature we will find that it has been continuously adding to the process of the unfolding dynamic of its Unified Logic. By giving rise to this dialectical process of alternate reality interacting with the reality and logic of facts, the Unified Logic process certainly moves on to a much more complex and intensive level and achieves a greater velocity of doing. This process of interaction becomes far more creative, productive and efficient. That is its potential and proven capability. But the contradiction that arises in addition to the above mentioned positive dimension of this interaction is that the variation between these two realities is also bound to give rise to things which are the opposite of what is the preferred reality in Nature. Before the emergence of this alternate reality the preferred reality in Nature has been of things and objects discovering those modes of interconnection and interaction which would be more complex, stable and capable of more functions. And by the same token rejecting those modes which are unable to achieve this. So there has been a process of selection based on preference for complexity and stability and also rejection through that very process. With the arrival and functioning of this new alternate reality on the stage of Nature one sees a massive surge in the emergence of things which are not preferable. This means that the rejection process which was earlier taking place randomly is going to be raised to a higher level where it will produce those processes which are bound to be rejected and now painfully so. Because now this rejection will include the rejection of those developed thinking and feeling specimens who have been invested with the capability of producing an alternate reality or the reality of ideas. Previously when Nature rejected realities which were produced by the Unified Logic Process, the Logic Process itself remained safe and could not be rejected; it was above the processes of its by-products and their rejection. In other words, the source of the production of realities was not threatened by the process of contradiction and remained above it as a core of harmony or the repository of producing that which is selected. So the rejection was suffered by the components it produced. In the case of human beings, if we view them as nothing more than components or products of the Unified Logic Process then their rejection is not a problem. But if we view them as sources of the creation of idea reality then not only the ideas and their products are rejected but the source (the individual and his mind) of that reality as well. And this does not happen amicably and in a straight line but very painfully and in multiple ways. Before human beings it did not matter how things and processes were rejected and how selection was made in Nature; whether through burning, an explosion or disintegration. But after human beings it begins to matter because now it involves the destruction of the source itself through more and new ways of rejection. The human idea process, has discovered innumerable new ways and modes of rejection for example, through all kinds of illusions and notions about ourselves and other individuals. For instance, ideas of grandeur, infallibility, being God-like and so on. Prior to human beings nothing else in Nature has had such idea based illusions and notions about itself and other specimens of its own kind. This adds a new factor to the process of rejection in Nature—the element of drama and tragedy. Now we have rejection via tragedy also.

 

In pre-living and pre-mental process Nature things of the same kind did not interact amongst themselves but with things of the other kind. But in living things there is interaction not only with other things and species but also with specimens of its own species and the classification of similarity and difference is now based upon specimens and not species. Amongst us this process of interaction increases exponentially and becomes highly developed and sophisticated with the result that we start viewing each other as objects and not a part of our own species. And needless to say that this interaction is now on the basis of elaborate idea structures including projections about how we have to interact with and treat other individuals. Due to the functioning of our elaborate idea structures about ourselves and other individuals we find the rate of rejection and the scale of its ruthlessness in the case of human idea and mental processes becoming far greater than the average rate of rejection in Nature. Of course we are aware that rejection has always been far more than selection but with this capability of producing an alternate reality through many-layered idea structures the risks and hazards of rejection become far more than ever before. Because now we not only have many more ways of rejection but continuously emerging and multiplying new forms of tragedies resulting from them.

​

What this indicates is that this process of tragedies produced within and via the mental processes will continue to go on until the process of producing idea reality comes in harmony with the reality of facts. This means our mental processes have to learn as fast as possible the art, craft and capability of producing a reality of ideas which is consistent with the reality of facts and also learn to avoid producing alternate realities that are going to be in conflict with it. In order to do this our mental processes need to make sure they do not preoccupy themselves with external reality cognition to such an extent that they have no time and capability left to fine tune their own processes of producing alternate reality. The problem is that up to now the cognitive and mental processes in living things, as products of the Unified logic Process, logically evolved as crude prototypes (not finished products) with a limited capability of projecting (in the form of mental images or ideas) reality and that too of external things. Mental processes of all living things including human beings have been biased in favor of and limited to cognizing things external to mental processes. That is why they have not yet been able to intelligently focus upon and cognize their own idea and other mental processes. But today this has become imperative and a precondition if we are to avoid rejection. 

​

It must be kept in mind that in the evolutionary process of Nature, mental processes, despite being a radically different and new process, are at par with all pre-existing things around it. Which means they are also subject to the ruthlessness inherent in the Unified Logic Process; the process of evolving the hard way through rejection resulting in selection. In fact, one can see this process at work in the hitherto evolution of mental processes after they emerged as a phenomenon in Nature. How they logically evolved through this ruthless rejection process which essentially arose out of the insufficiency and ensuing problems of the various mental functions and capabilities, while trying to ensure a better survival, stable functioning, further growth and reproduction of a living form. So there is nothing unusual or surprising that Nature is once again making us go through a ruthless rejection process in relation to our idea producing mental capability. That being said, there is also a positive side to the process of selection and rejection applicable to our species in this time. Alongside the capability of producing an unprecedented scale of rejection, our idea and mental processes also carry the capability to consciously avoid this rejection and its painful consequences. In our time we have reached a stage of mental development where we can intelligently avoid the contemporary conflicts and pains of rejection and achieve higher qualities of pleasure, happiness and harmony. If we become conscious and intelligent about ourselves and our minds as a part and tool of the Universal Logic Process then we can intelligently orchestrate our motivations, decision making, choices and doing to avoid the plethora of conflicts (pushing us towards rejection) that we have mentally created and our living with in these times. We can explore and carry out intelligently informed non-adversarial and collaborative interactions with individuals and groups through developing qualitatively new capabilities of cognizing, thinking and doing, which will produce new and dynamic qualities of pleasures and happiness that will earmark us for selection.

 

Up to now the capabilities in living things have been increasing and growing through pressure building up on specimens, forcing them to seek a continuously growing process of new interactions (which they were not capable of to begin with) that required better capabilities of cognition and thinking. Similarly, today the growing intensity and scale of rejection generated by the human idea process is ensuring that there will be so much pressure on the human species that it will never be able to relax in the state (with its existing capabilities) in which it exists. And this time the pressure is to produce a new capability of cognizing and understanding our mental processes so that we can stop producing contradictions (consequently tragedies) between the ideal reality and the reality of facts. And instead design and deliberately produce a harmony between these two realities. To sum up, we need to now start looking at our idea making and other mental processes from the above standpoint. We need to recognize and become intelligent about the pressure that Nature is putting on us to understand how we manufacture our idea reality, which arises as a mixed batch and then becomes so real for us that we start subordinating the reality of facts to it. So we must comprehend how it comes in conflict with the reality of facts, as the one fundamental truth in Nature. And how we can resolve this conflict today by coming up with new mental tools for producing an idea reality which would be in harmony and consonance with the fundamental reality of facts. This is the direction in which the human idea process needs to move in our time.        

​

Notes 

​

i.  These can range from being very simple ideas about mundane and tangible things, situations and objectives to highly complex ones which are about abstract, complex and intangible phenomena. 

​

ii.The nature and functioning of the human idea process has been a focus of inquiry and debate since the ancient Greeks. We find speculations about the mind and its processes of perception, thought, thinking, etc., and their interconnections and interaction with the body, going back to the Pre-Socratic tradition of Philosophy. And probably even before that in some Indian and Chinese philosophical thought. At that time the ‘idea’ process was not isolated and focused upon as a distinct mental process and was encompassed within processes like thought, thinking, reason, seeing through mind’s eye, etc. But with Socrates onward, and more specifically with Plato’s ‘Theory of ‘Forms’ or ‘Ideas’ and then Aristotle’s work on thought, memory and soul the basic ground work is laid for future work on ‘Ideas’ as a separate mental process and the debate of its connection with objective reality in both Philosophy and Science. More specifically these become precursors to a largely accepted view of ideas in both modern (also medieval) Philosophy and the Sciences exploring brain, mind and consciousness (Cognitive Science, Cognitive Psychology and other connected Scientific disciplines), in which they are seen as ‘mental representations’ (Pitt, 2017) of objects. 

These ‘mental representations’ can be in the form of ‘images’ (not perceptual but those which arise after subsequent mental processing of sensory/perceptual data in relation to some concrete external object) and also abstract concepts (verbal products which are not a simple ‘representation’ of any object of perception). The important point is that they are those representations which become tangible for the mind. Thus we can have simple ideas about concrete objects, events, situations, etc. and very complex ideas about abstract and intangible phenomena. In both cases the ideas in themselves are tangible for the mind and the thinking or thought process operates in terms of ideas.  

With the rise of Cognitive Sciences, Neuroscience, Brain Sciences, etc. ideas are now connected to the brain processes. Thus space for the Platonic theory of a separate realm of perfect ideas and its variations has gradually diminished and mainstream science (a few theoretical physicists, mathematicians and cognitive scientists hearken back to it when they are unable to make head way in their inquiry into the mind and consciousness) no longer accepts it. We do find some versions of it in Philosophy but the mainstream consensus today looks upon ideas as a product of the mind, which in turn is a product of the brain. Within this basic accepted framework one finds many theories and concepts explaining what ideas are and how they are produced within the mind and brain and how they operate or function and make us who we are.

  

iii. The fact that our brains have far more neuronal connections and their networks (including the complexity of their architecture especially in the language processing areas) than the animal brain is one reflection of the explosion in idea producing capability in humans. 

​

iv.  Here we would like to caution that this is not always a deliberate process. It can be done deliberately and also happens unconsciously, where a dominant or relevant (to the data in question) program of any of these mental states takes over. 

​

v. At present we harness our ideas for specific tasks and in certain specific areas, especially Science and Technology. And there we have made mind-boggling progress in terms of methods, methodologies, tools and also products. Outside of these tasks our ideas operate chaotically and freely without any serious and rigorous discipline. 

​

vi. As mentioned earlier there are nonverbal ideas in animals also but they are completely in sync with their programmed system’s dominant agenda and compulsion of responding to existing reality, as they perceive it through their sensory system. So animal ideas cannot operate on their own and autonomous of the overall programmed system within a particular specimen.

​

vii. This equation has an interesting fallout which incidentally also becomes the basis for the emergence of empiricism. The elaborate development of our idea based intelligence expands our emotions for living out our lives but at the same time constrains our thinking. Because we start equating the world of reality with our idea based mind. And this becomes the foundation stone of empiricism. There is one additional step in empiricism that we take and that is that we insist that our idea based intelligence must be verified. Which means that what is verified is existing reality and what is not yet verified is tomorrow’s reality. So this expanded empirical world, to which is added tomorrow’s empirical world then becomes our whole world and reality. That is the direction in which we are going. Now this certainly has a constricting effect on our idea based intelligence as it inhibits it from conceiving of hybrid forms, which constitute our mental reality, whether as the hybrid of our programmed process and idea based intelligence or a combination of pre-molecular and post-molecular forms. The idea based intelligence excludes even an intellectual vision of this hybrid reality. Whereas the problem is that our mental processes are themselves a product of this hybrid reality (pre and post molecular). And one can see this because its right here within our body and brain. Our mental reality is an integral part of our body and brain. The issue is that in Nature this hybrid reality came into being very logically and effortlessly. Because Nature does not have any constrictions, compartments, prejudices or pre-conditions. Thus like Nature we need to break out of the constricting effect of empiricism and recognize our existing mental processes as a hybrid reality, and also intelligently produce a new hybrid reality in the form of new and restructured mental processes. Otherwise like empirically driven scientists, philosophers and thinkers we will either confine mental processes to some molecular process or go to another extreme of explaining them away in supernatural terms.    

​

viii. This component also marks the inception of the ‘intelligent’ process stage in Nature after the ‘programmed’ process.  

​

ix. A living thing’s own internal state whether of hunger, fear, or any other particular need is an objective reality. And the specifics of the external environment with which it has to interact in order to address and fulfill the call of its inner objective reality is also an objective reality. So in the programmed system there is an inner objective reality reacting to an external objective reality in micro process. This is how the programmed system is connected to objective reality. 

​

x. The existing reactive process operates in terms of micro processes whereas ideas have a much wider range in terms of processes. They can move from macro to micro processes and all permutations and combinations in between. 

​

xi. Here we need to take note that this ‘subjectivity’ also does not remain the original subjective reactive response but gradually develops an elaborate derivative structure made up of subjective layers and structures. To take an example. We want to feel relaxed and look good. So we can move around our body and hair and freshen them up. But later on we start looking for advertisements of soaps, shampoos, conditioners, spas, ad infinitum. So these are derivatives. 

​

xii. When Sartre says “existence precedes essence” he is saying that “…man first exists: he materializes in the world, encounters himself, and only afterward defines himself…”(Sartre,2007, p. 22). And elsewhere he defines ‘existentialism’ as a doctrine that “…affirms that every truth and every action imply an environment and a human subjectivity…” (Sartre, 2007, 18). These excerpts tell us that in existentialist thought outside reality as distinct from internal reality is acknowledged but it is not viewed as critical and important to the understanding of self or self-definition through individual choice, striving and commitment.

​

xiii.  Sartre, 2007.

​

xiv.  We know that ‘morality’ essentially refers to some codes of conduct, which can arise out of any framework of thinking, religious or otherwise. And these can be made by society, some group or even individuals and then adopted and practiced by them. Which means broadly speaking they govern the behavior of people who accept and adopt them. The problem arises when this ‘morality’ becomes a dogma and acquires a fossilized state. Which means in the thinking and doing of people it is no longer a growing, living and changing process. Primarily this happens due to insufficient knowledge, which limits and circumscribes further holistic growth, serious modification and flexibility of understanding. With the result that partial and lopsided understanding along with gaps in knowledge produce ideas and concepts of right and wrong, good and bad, truth and false, happiness and misery, etc., which become fixed in our minds; they become holy cows. By ‘socialist morality’ we are referring to the Socialist ideals (ideas and concepts) about individuals and society which have acquired the form of ‘morality’ in our minds. People who propound or subscribe to them are unwilling and unable to change or modify them in the light of new facts and knowledge. With the result that they have also become fossilized in our minds, somewhat like the ideals of religions.

​

xv. By degeneration we mean when the actual thinking and doing of individuals falls short of or in fact becomes contrary to the original basic positions and spirit of this construct. 

​

xvi. The macro dimension of Nature encompassing all space and time (past and future), and phenomena (forms and processes), which are not static but operate as dynamic processes both internally and externally, in accordance with their specific logics. So Nature as a whole is an aggregate (not mechanical but organic and dynamic) of all phenomena existing as processes and their respective logics, and also a macro dynamic evolutionary process itself, with its own fundamental underlying logic, which has been and is continuing to evolve. 

​

xvii.  When the unending variety of illusions, notions, etc., and their consequences come in conflict with the Logic Process they get rejected. This rejection manifests in the form of drama, destruction, disintegration and pain, in short, tragedies of various kinds and dimensions which are not only physical but largely mental. So this is an unprecedented factor in Nature.  

​

xviii. Broadly speaking, today the bulk of rejection is executed by the mental processes themselves and not directly by the reality of facts, i.e. the Universal Logic Process. 

​

xix. Looking at the evolutionary history of the various mental functions and processes in simpler living organisms, advanced animals and human beings we find piece meal and incremental growth and modifications in mental functions, like perception, cognition, emotional system, intelligence, memory, Will and many others, spanning hundreds of years and across species. Since our various mental functions are an integral part of and the next link in evolution hence they are logically imperfect and insufficient prototypes, unless we think that evolution has come to an end with us and our mental processes.

​

xx. They have been modifying only as a response to external stimuli and not through a deliberate process of focusing upon themselves. 

​

xxi. In addition to the aesthetic of Nature one also finds ruthlessness of Nature in the form of the process of rejection and selection which applies equally to all forms that it has produced.  

​

xxii.  We have seen how rejection and selection has taken place in relation to both the brain and the mind. The various components and parts of the brain have evolved through rejection and selection to ensure the survival, reproduction, further proliferation and stability of the living form. And this process has been operating even at the level of genes (like ASPM and microcephalin (Gianaro, 2005)) involved in making and evolving the brain. Similarly various mental functions and processes have also evolved and developed through this process.   

​

xxiii.  In terms of capabilities of feeling, thinking and doing.

​

xxiv.  The growing pleasures and happiness arising out of a more complex (incorporating micro and macro) mental integrity, intelligent compassion, emotional and intellectual stability, strength of character, and a synthetic wisdom which intelligently integrates the earlier wisdom with the existing and future reality of facts and ideas to produce a more holistic and practically effective amalgam.    

​

xxv.  Pre-living things did not create new processes of interaction except when there was an interaction.

​

xxvi.  A kind of compensation for not having produced in the first instance a perfect capability of producing an idea reality which interfaced harmoniously with the reality of facts. 

​

xxvii. Tools of cognizing, understanding and engineering our idea process; how this would be a process involving inputs from other existing mental processes that go into the idea making process and the making of new inputs and connections which can modify the mechanics of the existing process and add new mechanics and components.  

​

​

​

​

​