Meshuggah's "Catch 33": An Absurdist Account on the Equilibrium of Contradiction

Meshuggah, a metal band known for consistently delivering lyrical themes with strong existential implications, is well known for their mind-screw presentation of said lyrics. Undertaking the task of understanding their lyrics is not for the faint of heart, as such lyrics contain great symbolic structure and an abstract theme that can be difficult to relate back to the aspect of reality of which it references. Be that as it may, a goldmine awaits for those who take the time to undergo this transaction, as a profound message inevitably awaits the metal fan who chooses to look profoundly past the surface level contradictions and undergo the journey of exploring Meshuggah's archetypal narratives.

Within the discography of Meshuggah, no piece captures the contradictory nature of their lyrics more than the concept album "Catch Thirtythree", an album which focuses on the nature of contradiction itself. In highlighting our first contradiction, drummer and lyrical writer Tomas Haake confirmed this theme, preventing fans from needing to explore Catch Thirtythree's narrative. That being said, the chaotic absurdism presented by these lyrics hides our second contradiction; a consistent narrative, for not only does the protagonist of this album experience a consistent narrative (which itself is a contradiction in respect to the theme) but that said contradictions can be resolved via the theme. Indeed, contradiction itself is a form of paradox which, though self-contradictory, leads to a unity of opposite, producing an interconnected whole. Hence, the purpose of this essay. First, we shall examine the lyrical theme to reveal the message contained within this apparent absurdism; second, we shall investigate the proponents of dualistic monism as a proponent theory to the nature of metaphysics; finally, we shall demonstrate how the paradoxical nature of the protagonists predicament can be reconciled under a monistic whole.

                                                        Part 1: The Unresolved-Resolution

Let us begin with our lyrical analysis. Throughout the album, our narrative is composed in the format of a single song, divided amongst a variety of subsections along the protagonist's journey. I will conduct this analysis through demonstrating the apparent conclusion of each section's message, as well as analyzing contradictions important in the central theme of the narrative. As the majority of lyrics within this piece are contradictions, I will only analyse the contradictions which are of particular salience for understanding the album's message. With this clarified, let us begin.
                                                        Catch Thirtythree

The album name itself demonstrates the nature of its message with a literary allusion title. The titular Catch Thirtythree is a play on the commonly uttered "catch 22" which alludes to a dilemma or difficult circumstance from which there is no escape because of mutually conflicting or dependent circumstances. Keep the notion of conflict in mind, as it is of particular relevance to how our narrator attempts to resolve the paradox of his situation. Furthermore, the nature of the cover art provides an important conclusion through its symbolism. In it, we see two serpents, independent, yet intertwined in a two-by-one nature, much reminiscent of the characteristic yin-yang dichotomy presented from the east. However, below these two, we see a third serpent, itself the same species as the other two, yet alone in its interaction. This art demonstrates beautifully how "a picture is worth a thousand words" as this artistic piece shows the entirety of our narrator's journey, from his conflict to his conclusion. Bare this in mind as we continue.

                                                        Autonomy Lost

Reaching for the inner bright, the very essence-sun of my dreaming bliss Guided by a fear blinded outside all shades of the perfect black

The journey of our narrator begins with his desire to reach a positive aspect of himself. Presumably, a life free of discomfort and suffering. This leads to his first paradox, as it is precisely his fear of not obtaining happiness that misguides him and blinds him to the paradoxical effort he is undergoing. In an attempt to obtain bliss as a means of avoiding misery, the existence of his fear will never truly allow him to enter his “inner essence-sun”, for he is so afraid of not obtaining his happiness that this is precisely the mechanism that will never allow him to be happy. Thus, the pursuit of happiness is paradoxical, for pursuing happiness will not permit the sufferer to be content, as they will never know happiness if one must be dependent on it.                                                         Inprint of the Un-Saved

The scattered jigsaw of my redemption laid out before my eyes. Each piece as amorphous as the other - Each piece in its lack of shape a lie

In his inability to liberate himself from his suffering, the protagonist looks for clues as to how to escape his misery. Problematically, this searching begins to entrap him further into his own paradoxical cycle. All techniques, or “pieces” are simply compulsions that lead to false comfort and reinforce suffering. Hence, the lie by which this “jigsaw” promises to liberate him with its completion. As paradoxical effort leads simply to false comfort, the solution is never permanent, leading to an infinite, amorphous cycle of false liberation.

                                                        Disenchantment

Me - The paragon of fear, an immobile skein of tangled nerves exposed Hastily clawing my way into the darkest of my inner scenes of torture

I stay my breath to escape this slavery I stay my breath to reawake and face it encore The struggle to free myself of restraints becomes my very shackles

The protagonist has officially entered the paradoxical realm. In his quest to eradicate himself of discomfort, he has come to see his fear as an enemy to be eradicated. Of course, the negative outlook of one’s fear does not lead to its eradication, but only serves to reinforce the fear within oneself. In the desire to liberate himself of dysphoria, his only success was in learning to become afraid of his own fear, further amplifying its grip and driving him deeper into a negative feedback loop driven by the very desire to escape. The final line of this passage not only summarizes this stanza, but the sum-total of Catch Thirtythree itself. In attempting to be free of negativity, one is merely reinforcing the state of negativity, paradoxically trapping one in the undesired state through the very desire to be liberated.

                                                        The Paradoxical Spiral

Non-physical smothering. Asphyxiation by oxygen hands. Drowning in the endless sky. An ever downward dive, only to surface. The sewage of indecision, on which all sense of self is afloat. The vortex-acceleration a constant. Resolute in purpose its choking flow.

The protagonist is now at the mercy of his anxiety. This passage reflects his inability to breathe within his self-contained prison. Viewing his liberation as “oxygen”, he is strangled by the image of euphoria that eludes him further and further. The “sky” with which he can never reach contains bare minimal moments of liberation, in which allowing himself to sink and drown in fear is the very thing that leads to its desensitization. These moments, ignored by the protagonist, lead to the “sewage” of non-acting, as the act of doing nothing is precisely what will liberate him from his absurdist hell. However, these thoughts, images and feelings that he experiences within himself contradict his self-image, and lead him to continue and try to push away his internal states that he refuses to allow expression. As such, he continues to “choke” in the ever-present “stagnant” flow of his anxiety, continuously trapped in his stagnant, ever-flowing spiral of madness.

                                                        Re-Inanimate

My ignorance cast in the mold of all things absolute. I sustain forever my gaze. A stare fixed on the distant oblivion. Resting in the inverted state of being dead, non-sensory matter As all the earth, the wind, the fire, the sea behold and learn to pity me

While our narrator had previously stated that he would “face” his anxiety, he is doing so in an attempt to neutralize its grip, not to accept it as an experience to be tolerated. His ignorance of its resolution leads him to continue to avoid its presence through his refusal to acknowledge it. Metaphorically, he uses the paradox of being “dead, non sensory matter.” While he himself is a “stein of tangled nerves exposed”, the material components of his organism themselves are not alive, though in organizing in the [formal cause] of himself, they adhere to the generation of his organic functions. This is the paradox of life. Metaphorically, he is explaining that in avoiding the anxiety, he is commiting a partial suicide through not integrating his internal messenger. As such, the [four elements] that intermerge to form his existence “learn to pity me”, for he continues to confine himself to his hellish feedback loop rather than simply accept the fact of negative experience.

                                                        Entrapment

Mutiny of self. Insurrection games convincingly performed. Incapacitated by physical thoughts acting out the will of tendon and bone. Have the bridges of insanity been crossed and forever retracted? Am I standing among a thousand selves? Is the multitude of laughter mine alone?

Our protagonist begins to see his self-denial. He begins to gain awareness that this paradoxical cycle is perpetuated by his lack of self-expression. Though he is beginning to enter the enlightened state of auto-acceptance, he still views his thoughts as being the source of the problem. As the cycle has continued, he has become so entrenched within his individual war that he sees no exit from his apparent madness. In this anxiety, he becomes aware of all the possibilities that may befall him within his thought-loop, yet admits that he may be the very source of his suffering through questioning if the “laughter” resulting from this paradoxical absurdity is merely his.

                                                        Mind's Mirrors

The feeding frenzy of my starving soul, gnawing voraciously at the bones, the exo-skeletal patchwork protecting my own reflection within; The twin-and-same engaged in the mirrored act of chewing away at the shell of my attacking self. The paradox unseen.

Treacherous this deceit to make no choice matter To have and yet lose yourself, until finally all reasons why are forgotten To live through one’s own shadow. Mute and blinded, is to really see Eclipse the golden mirror and the reflection is set free.

The narrator has finally discovered the central aspect of his dichotomy. Eating away at himself in an attempt to live an ideal existence, he becomes aware of who he truly is and what is occurring within his mind. Seeing his idealized image in contrast to his ever-present self, he himself attacks himself through being unable to achieve his desired image as well as not permitting his true nature to be expressed. This paradox of both trying to “be” himself and yet destroy himself leaves him to attack himself within a state of psychological autoimmunity. In realizing his treachery towards his authenticity, he concludes that in failing to introspect, one can naturally express themselves through their ignorance. To be unaware of oneself, “mute and blinded”, one can “see” themselves through the consequences of their actions, and thus live authentically. Hence, the narrator's solution is to eradicate his idealized state of liberation, and in accepting reality, “the reflection is set free.”

                                                        In Death -Is Life

So imminently visible - this cloaked innocent guilt Sentenced to a lifetime, a second of structured chaos Trampled by the ferocious, raging crowds of solitude I’m the soil beneath me soaking up the sustenance of my own death

Extradited to the gods of chance, the deities of all things random Alive, multicolored, twitching in their monochrome world

Through no fault of his own, the narrator acknowledges that he was randomly “selected” to suffer a chaotic state of mind, constantly structured within its apparently randomized pathology. Isolated within his burdened state, he contemplates about how he has been attempting to kill off aspects of his mind. However, he begins to succumb to his internal voices, these “gods of chance.” These gods represent not only the apparent randomness of his cycle, but aspects of the narrator's psyche that long for self-expression. Though these aspects of the narrator bring him anguish and suffering, he acknowledges the randomness of his mind still offers the chance of fulfillment for which he has so longed for. Thus, the narrator's thoughts may be bleak, but still contain “color” within his state of bleakness.

                                                        In Death - Is Death

Indescent to the searhing eyes, i’m all things vivid in a world of grey So easily spotted, so easily claimed in this domain where all is prey

My thoughts a radiant beacon to the omnidimensional hunter-god radar I’m a marklight of light to these subconscious carnivores I am them. I am teeth. I’m their arousal at the kill Feeding on self. A schizoreality warp. The contradiction fulfilled.

Focus the only means to see me back to life's unending swirl A reversal of passing away, as the world of dead, as away is now my origin

The protagonist begins by explaining how after this realization, he is the only answer that is obvious within a nebulous world of uncertainty. As a result of the predicament of not having answers, he is easily victimized by the anxiety via a need for certainty. His intrusive thoughts serve as the beacon which attracts this anxiety, continuously being devoured by the “carnivores.” Though he is the victim of their hunt, he is also them, as it is him who devours himself within this cyclical self-consumption. Trying to utilize the epiphany which had previously brought him comfort, he tries to escape his thoughts by focusing on external reality, back to the “away” reality which serves as the source of his origin.

                                                        Shed
I float through physical thoughts. I stare down the abyss of organic dreams All bets off I plunge - Only to find that self is shed

With time, the narrator has begun looking beyond himself and living in accordance with his previous doctrine “to live through one’s own shadow.” He no longer attempts to suppress aspects of his mind's expression, but rather learns to tolerate his discomfort of paradoxical self-expression. In so doing, he lets go of the desire to be in a different state of mind and simply accepts his self-drowning and permits the discomfort. In so doing, he sheds the objective of liberating himself to reach his “inner bright”, but embraces his state as it naturally is.

                                                        Personae Non Gratae

A lie to maintain equilibrium, to hold me in this dead realm - this last ever dream I’m the thought that never crossed my mind - disguised in the evident. Forever unredeemed

The narrator has learned to separate the false comfort that fuels his paradox from himself. He realizes that it is the search for abolishment from pain that caused his cycle to stick and fueled its return. In so doing, he now realizes he never thought of simply letting his internal state be, and that the nature of his paradox is that the desire to be liberated of pain only reinforces the pain that one suffers.

                                                        Dehuminization

A new level reached, where the absence of air lets me breathe I’m inverted electrical signals. A malfunctioning death-code incomplete All things before me, at first unliving glimpse undeciphered Its semantics rid of logic. Nothing is all. All is contradiction

Grinding, churning - the sweetest ever noises Decode me into their non-communication A soundtrack to my failure, one syllable, one vowel

A stagnant flow of endings. Un-time unbound. Merging to form the multi-none A sickly dance of matter, malignantly benign. Greeting the chasm - unbearable, sublime

In surviving through his dysfunctional state, the narrator finds order within his chaos. He accepts that he is simply death waiting to happen, and along the trajectory of life, many events will occur that do not make sense. He accepts the absurdity of existence, and learns that the acceptance of the discomfort with self-contradiction is what will allow him to be liberated from it. Thus, he accepts it within himself, and the permitting of anxiety allows him to live without being a victim of chronic fear. His further failure to achieve his “inner bright” was precisely his greatest victory, and he finds beauty in the “grinding, churning” of his thoughts. Forever being locked inside the lifelong journey of finding the end to suffering, he sees that all his epiphanies led him exactly to where he was; running a hundred kilometers an hour, yet never arriving anywhere. As such, he embraces the final conclusion of ceasing all effort, recognizing the beauty within himself and his life, including when he is inevitably subjected to unbearable pain.
                                                        Sum

Vision will blind. Severance ties. Medium am I. True are all lies.

The final conclusion of our protagonist. He embraces the paradox of existence and has found solace within it. Thus, his journey has come to an end.

                                                        Part 2:The Liminal-Destination

Let us take a brief moment from our analysis and explore the realm of metaphysics. In attempting to understand reality, philosophers have devised many potential theories as to the ultimate nature of reality. Though many potential schools of thought exist, two-central camps seem ever-present in metaphorical exploration; dualism: the proposal that reality is composed of two primary substances (usually matter and mind) and monism: the proposition of reality being of one fundamental nature. Various forms of monistic thought exist, including idealism (reality is mental and/or dependent on mind) and the currently popular materialism (reality is purely material). Ironically, the majority of humans think in a dualistic fashion (“i’m feeling fine, but my mind is slow today) and indeed, with the ubiquity of religious belief, it is a safe assumption to presume the majority of humans are dualist. There’s merely one problem: for centuries, dualists could never answer the question of how an abstract, incorporeal substance could interact with a concrete, material substance. This leads to my central proposal: opposites are joined at the hip. What we perceive to be two things possessing a different nature is merely two-different aspects of the same underlying phenomena. The only difference lies in the degree with which an aspect of that phenomenon is expressed. This notion, unfortunately unpopular, is known as dual-aspect monism, also known as dialectical monism. Let’s illustrate this theory with an example. If you are near one, examine the nearest exit near you. It may be the exit to your apartment, home, or whatever room you are in. Traditionally, an exit is seen as the opposite to an entrance, as exits permit one to leave their current vicinity. However, everything with an exit has an entrance. The two terms are not mutually exclusive. Rather, they depend on each other for the existence of the other. Furthermore, what is an exit or an entrance depends on the perspective of the viewer, for in exiting one room, you are entering another; and by entering another, you are exiting from your current position. Entrance and exit are not only dependent upon the other, they are two aspects of the exact same thing.

                                                        Part 3: The Articulate-Incongurence

Perhaps you are beginning to see how this ties in to Catch Thirtythree. But before delivering my concluding thought, let us examine the law of non-contradiction within philosophy. The law of noncontradiction states that it is impossible for a proposition to be A and not-A simultaneously. Something may only ever be itself, not true and false at the same time. As such, A cannot be B, and B cannot be A. But let’s look a little deeper. What are A and B exactly? Obviously, they are letters used to represent a proposition. But what is a letter? Aside from a unit of language used to formulate an utterance, it is merely a series of lines formed to a set, defined sequence when written. As A and B are both letters, they are both defined by the set sequence of lines with which they are composed. Furthermore, if you took A and rearranged the set sequence to a new set sequence, you would end up precisely with B. Such is the case for all reality, and hence, for our protagonist of Catch Thirtythree. Virtually every paradox included, interpreted literally and metaphorically, can be resolved under this paradigm. This is what our narrator has finally concluded. All of his contradictions were part of one encompassing thing; himself. The only perceived paradox was in the failure to integrate his various self-aspects to encompass one individuality. Had the narrator accepted his fear, he would have seen that he was already within his inner bright. For as Buddha said over two-thousand years ago, “There is no way to happiness. Happiness is the way.” As a sufferer of OCD, I can affirm that millions of people are suffering through the same cycle. The attempt to run from yourself only leads to the reinforcement that one has something to run from. But as our thoughts are not controlled by us, attempting to rigidly dictate our mental content only serves to reinforce our anxieties. However, submission to our state of being permits its expression, and in so doing, processes what needs to be felt. Our narrator has learned this fundamental lesson, and this is the central method of Catch Thirtythree. Let’s not treat the absurdity of life’s contradictions as an enemy to be defeated, but as a friend to be embraced. Recognize that your inner-bright is your reality all along, and you will avoid the cycle of suffering.

“The struggle itself towards the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.” -Albert Camus

Idealism vs Materialism: A Debate Among Monistic Thought

Previously, I had examined briefly, distinct theories pertaining to the nature of reality. The two main schools examined pertained to whether we perceive reality directly as it is, or whether information is incorporated through the providing of sense data. These two schools of thought are known as direct and indirect realism, respectively. While distinct in how we perceive the world, both schools of thought agree that the external reality exists, and that it is independent of our cognitions and perceptions of it.

However, some philosophers have argued that reality is in some way dependent on the mind. Indeed, some have even argued that reality is mental by nature, and generated purely through the internal cognition of ones mental faculties. This school of thought is known as "idealism" and it has been a great source of thought and controversy throughout the history of philosophy. Idealism is a monistic school of thought, meaning that it regards reality as being of one substance. All things that appear different are merely alternate aspects of the same thing. For idealism, reality is mental or spiritual by nature. Idealism does not always suggest that reality itself does not exist externally, but it does suggests that we can only ever know reality as it manifests in our minds. This is distinct from indirect realism, in that this perception of reality is distinct and only knowable through the mind, and is not an identical copy of the world perceived. However, from an ontological perspective, idealism does tend to suggest that reality is merely a mental byproduct, and does not possess existence in its own right. This view of thought is most famously credited to George Berkeley, who suggested that objects only exist as long as they are being perceived.

In direct contrast, a distinct monistic school has rivaled idealism throughout the centuries. This school is known as materialism, and it suggests that reality, and all events occurring in it, are, or are the result of, material processes. This view is much more common sense today, and very likely more widely accepted by readers. This view is closely, if not identically aligned, with the current scientific view, which suggests that reality consists of matter, and is composed of atomic structures. This view dates back to 585 B.C, with Greek philosophers Lucretius and Democritus being credited as the first atomists. Unlike idealism, materialism is also a monistic school, as it claims that matter is the only substance of which reality is composed. Furthermore, what idealism calls "mind" is merely the result of physical interactions (such as firing neurons and connecting synapses).

Together, these two schools of thought constitute the main monistic ontological schools (though others exist). Each school has existed for over a millennia, and has had several philosophers arguing for the validity of each. In this post, I shall briefly cover the history of both, and provide certain examples of the perspectives of each. Then, I shall provide arguments on the strengths and weaknesses of each, and attempt to see which, if either, school of thought prevails.

                                    Idealism History

The origins of idealism stem back from the veda school of Hinduism. Metaphysically, this school proposes that reality is one all encompassing mind, belonging to a being referred to as Brahman (God). Reality as we understand it is one with Brahman, and all things are generated in the mind of Brahman. We are no exception to this rule, as Brahman exists within us as well. When we realize this, we achieve peace in our minds. Furthermore, selfish action and pursuits separates us from Brahmans interdependence, and contributes to suffering.

Turning from Asia, idealisms founding continent, idealism continued through the tradition of the ancient Greeks. Though many schools of thought existed at this time period, the seeds of idealism originated from the philosopher Anaxagoras, in 480 B.C, who also believed that reality consisted of several microscopic seeds, which formed the basis of matter. As a result, he was not an idealist in the true sense, as matter was part of his philosophy. However, he believed that these seeds created form and life through an all pervasive, ever present mind, without which, existence as we know it would cease.

Continuing in ancient Greece, idealist philosophy made its way into the thoughts of Plato, whom is usually credited as idealisms founder. This is do to the fact that Plato viewed ideas as being more real than concrete things. In Platonic philosophy, the world as we understand it is impermanent, and in a constant state of change. As a result, it is contingent, and we can never know for certain what it is. However, the impermanent nature of it is do precisely to its imperfection, and it being "not the real world". Instead, true reality was found in a distinct realm of abstract, ideal forms, in which the true things existed. The forms, quite literally "are what they are" in that they are there own thing, and are pure in their nature. There is nothing else that it is a part of there essence, and they only reflect the thing of which they are. They are also more real than objects we see in our world. For example, chairs are always being built and used, but they also rot away from the passage of time and misuse. Because of this, everyday chairs are contingent and impermanent, but the form of chair (which Plato would argue is "the" chair) is eternal and unchanging. It is the truest chair, and exists to represent all imperfect chairs in the realm of contingency. But these chairs with which we are familiar are simply imperfect reflections or "shadows" of the real and eternal form of chair. Such is the way of all things, be it trees, circles or humans. Everything is really just an imperfect copy of its perfect form. Furthermore, when we recognize a category, we are remembering its abstract form from its distinct realm. Indeed, Plato believed that our true nature was as spiritual beings who lived in the realm of ideal forms. However, every so often, we would reincarnate in the physical realm, and begin a new life. In this life, our recognition of everyday objects was not pure recollection in how we understand it, but was actually remembering our time in the realm of forms. Thus, recollection was simply recall.

Platonic philosophy has been debated extensively as to its nature. To date, agreement has not been made on whether he was truly an idealist or whether his philosophy was indeed reflective of realism. What is clear is that Plato did not deny the existence of matter. He just saw matter and physical objects as being imperfect and less real then there abstract formal counterparts. I personally argue that Plato was a realist, as he saw the forms being of true existence independent of our knowledge or awareness of them. Though ideas are more real than matter by his notion, ideas are simply recollections of abstract forms that exist outside of the mind. Thus, this reflects a realist philosophy, albeit a unique and unusual one.

Though it existed following Plato, idealism as a movement did not become significant until the 18th century, where philosopher George Berkeley wrote extensively on the subject. The founder of a school known as "subjective idealism", Berkeley is quoted with the famous saying essi est percepi (to exist is to be perceived). In his philosophy, Berkeley believed that the nature of existence was completely dependent on the presence of a perceiver. A thing did not have material or independent existence, and was only real as long as it was perceived in some way. When one visually saw an object, it then gained existence, but as soon as the object was no longer being perceived, it stopped existence. By extension, it is clear that Berkeley did not believe that matter possessed any real nature, or if it did, Berkeley suggested that it was unknowable. All we could ever know were ideas, and because of this, what we perceive must be ideas by there nature. In an attempt to explain how reality did not vanish, Berkeley provided an explanation using God. He claimed that God is the ultimate perceiver, never not perceiving anything. Therefore, all things stayed in existence through Gods perception, and everything, including us, exists in the mind of God.

Though other notable idealists exist, such as Immanuel Kant, I shall conclude our discussion of idealism with Berkeley, as his philosophy captures the true essence of what idealism suggests. Though not all, or even most idealists go as far as Berkeley in their ontological claims, idealism does typically suggests that ideas are more real than anything else, and we cannot know anything outside of our ideas.

With that in mind, let us move on to idealisms contrasting school of thought; materialism.

                                Materialism History

The seeds of materialistic cosmology first took root in India, and were subtly suggested by philosopher Ajita Kesakambali, who argued that the body was one with the earth, and that after death, we would return to the ground. It's been suggested that he did not believe in an afterlife, or an eternal soul.

The Milesians were the first society to have believed in a materialist cosmology. Unlike neighbouring regions, they rejected the doctrine of the universe being ruled by anthropomorphized deities. Instead, reality was simply a byproduct of the interaction between four substances: earth, wind, air and mist. Though they had a cosmological explanation, they could not account for change in matter.

The first to truly explore change was the Greek philosopher Heraclitus (535-475 B.C). In his philosophy, Heraclitus proposed that reality by nature was in a state of ever-present change. Flow and flux are the nature of all things, with everything in a state of constant becoming. This is in direct contrast to Empedocles, who proposed that reality was an eternal,  non-changing being. The eternal, ever-present change was the result of contrasting relations occurring within objects. Opposing forces were always attempting to dominate, and always threatened to contribute to the entropy of objects. As Heraclitus himself states, "war is the father of all". As a result, objects and phenomena come into existence, persist temporarily, and then eventually pass away. Though not explicitly stated, these interactions are presumed to be material by nature. Like the Milesians, Heraclitus rejected creationism, and saw the prospect of divine agents as nonsense. Presumably, this suggests that his philosophy was materialistic.

Despite this ambiguity, the first confirmed founders of materialist philosophy after the Milesians were found in ancient Greece. Confirmation of Greek materialism exists in the school of atomism, founded by Democritus (460-370 B.C). In this school, it was thought that matter was made of several microscopic and indivisible particles, called atoms. The atoms in-and-of themselves were not visible to the naked eye, and possessed no secondary qualities, such as color, taste or texture.

Though Democritus was not entirely correct (atoms have been found to be divisible), Democritus' school of thought appears to align fairly accurately with the scientific conceptualization. Matter has been found to be made of atoms, and scientists have attested to their lack of secondary qualities. It is interesting to note that the atomist school of thought was quite unpopular for its time, with ancient religion or other philosophical schools predominating.

                                              Analysis   

Idealism is no longer a predominant school of thought, and appears to be lacking in logical credibility. This school of thought proposes many more questions than it does answers. If reality is mental, then how does one live in a non-existence world. Without an external reality, how could a spacetime continuum exist for free movement and perception? If spirituality is the all pervasive material of which reality consists, what is it that makes up spiritual substance? Is it energy? Is it minds found in objects? These are only a few questions that idealism creates.

Despite this, idealism does present with certain thought provoking claims. Science does suggest that our relation to understanding the world is contingent upon cognitive schemas and mental faculties. Experimentation further shows that much of the perception we experience on a momentary basis is not granted access to conscious experience, even if it happens right in front of our eyes. An experiment in cognitive psychology has demonstrated that when participants are asked to observe a basketball being thrown between players, they did not notice an individual in a gorilla suit walking in front of them. This does suggest that reality, as we understand it, does not extent outside the processes of the mind. In addition, although reality likely exists outside the mind, all our understanding of it exists within the mind, as the mind is the only aspect for processing information. In that way, reality is dependant on the mental realm.

In contrast, materialism does conform to the scientific understanding of reality. Matter, and the validity of its existence, has been established repeatedly in fields such as chemistry and physics. Furthermore, atoms have been demonstrated to be the fundamental building blocks of matter by these fields. As such, repeated evidence for matter has been demonstrated, with numerous theories and experiments proving its validity.

Despite this, materialism does not account for a free will account of human psychology. If our mind is simply the result of material interactions, then a free will account is likely not possible. Nevertheless, humans can decide whether to listen to messages given from the mind, suggesting there is choice in action taken.

Next, materialism does not fully account for energy. Modern day physics regards matter and energy as interchangeable. As such, they are two sides of the same thing. This suggests that a third entity may exist, which accounts for both matter and energy. Also, energetic charge is found within atoms, and does not in-and-of-itself appear to possess a material existence, as energy is not physical or composed of atoms as is matter.

Finally, when one thinks of "psyche" or "spirit", the substance of which is used to explain it is energy. As previously mentioned, matter and energy are interchangeable, yet energy does is not material by nature, which provides some limitations in the school of materialism. Hermeticist philosophy provides an account, suggesting also that matter and energy are interchangeable. They further suggest that energy is the substance of spirit, but this does not subtract from its interchangeability of matter. Instead, it is viewed that matter is condensed energy, while energy is diffuse matter. This suggests that what we call matter and mind, or abstract and concrete, are actually two sides of the same substance.

This school of thought is referred to as "dual-aspect monism" and in my view, presents a much better account for the nature of reality. In fact, I argue that dual-aspect monism reflects the truth (or is the closest to reflecting truth) about the ontological nature of substance. However, seeing as this post merely explains idealism and materialism, I shall cover dual-aspect monism in the next post.

In conclusion, idealism presents with several unanswered questions. Though materialism does not account for all answers, evidence for matter is overwhelming. Despite both their deficiencies, each school need not be outright dismissed, but can be answered through viewing both sides as two aspects of the same substance, of which dual-aspect monism explains. As such, it is the more credible view, and is, in my view, largely accurate in explaining the nature of substance. The reasons for this, as well as this schools arguments, shall be covered in the next post.

Realism: Direct or Indirect?

In our quest to discover the nature of reality, it is imperative to determine whether reality exists, in the sense that it is external and independent of our perceptions of it. While this is the common sense view, some would argue that this is not the case. These philosophers instead claim that reality is actually mind dependent, and is contingent upon our understanding of it. This school of thought is known as idealism, and shall be covered in a future post.

Instead, this post will cover the school of thought known as realism, which argues that an external reality exists and is mind independent. However, two distinct schools of thought have produced a schism within this branch of philosophy, these being direct and indirect realism. While both argue that reality is mind-independent, they differ in how we perceive reality. The differences shall be outlined below.

                                                        Direct Realism

Direct realism (also known as "naïve" realism) argues that reality, as we perceive it, is the true reality. In other words, when we perceive reality, we perceive it directly for how it actually is. When one looks at a wall, the properties of the wall exist in the external world, and they are directly proportionate to the actual world, because they are the same properties of the actual world. This theory is also known as naïve realism, because it is the common sense view that most individuals possess. When perceiving the world, one instinctively assumes that they are perceiving the world directly.

While this may be the case, problems emerge with this theory. On a daily basis, we receive sensory stimuli that are not proportionate to the actual perceived object. These are what are known as illusions. A notable example is of placing a stick inside of a pool of water. When the stick enters the water, it appears bent to the perceiver; however, when removed from the water, the stick appears straight. If direct realism is correct, then it would be assumed that the stick is actually being bent in the water, though this is not really the case.

                                                    Indirect Realism

In contrast, indirect realism (also known as "representational" realism) argues that we do not perceive reality directly. Instead, objects in the external world exhibit specific properties that are converted through our sense organs through an intermediary known as "sense data." This sense date is a configuration of our minds that allows us to create a "virtual reality" or "copy" of the external world. It is this copy that we perceive, not the true external world around us.

It is this position that modern scientists take in our understanding of perception. Indeed, science has demonstrated that perception takes place through properties (such as light and audio waves) that are detected by our sense organs and configured into electrical impulses, which allows our brains to perceive the detected stimuli. Nevertheless, problems also emerge with this theory. If this theory is indeed true, then the reality which we perceive is merely a veil for the true reality that exists external to us. Therefore, we are locked inside of our own minds, and cannot understand reality as it exists externally. As such, we have no way of knowing if our external reality is truly proportionate to the external world. Indeed, there is scientific evidence to indicate that it is not. For example, color is emitted by light wavelengths which reach the eyes and are converted into electrical signals through the optic nerves. The occipital lobe (the visual processing center of the brain) then uses these signals to perceive the sense data, and converts the wavelengths into the perception of color. This means that color, as we perceive it, does not exist. Instead, what we perceive is the illusionary byproduct of our brain attempting to perceive our external reality, further lending support to indirect realism.

                                                          Analysis

                                                    (John Locke; 15th century empiricist)

From the scientific standpoint, it appears that indirect realism does indeed present as a more credible theory to the nature of reality. Our perception of reality is contingent upon external factors, such as light and sound waves, that are converted by our sense organs into electrical impulses, which serve as a form of sense data to allow the organism to perceive the world. Nevertheless, the external objects themselves exist, unless idealism is correct. Though the objects themselves exist, certain properties do not exist in the external world as we understand them. This is important to understanding indirect realism. To provide an example, let us briefly examine the philosophy of John Locke.

John Locke was a fifteenth century philosopher who is widely known for his empiricist position. Empiricism is a school of thought that argues that knowledge can only be gathered through sense experience. It is in direct contrast to its rivaling school known as rationalism, which argues that knowledge is acquired through logical reasoning. In his philosophy, Locke argued that the human mind at birth is tabula rasa (a blank slate), and our knowledge is imprinted on our mind later through sense perception and life experience. Locke compares this process to a painter creating a picture on a white canvas. Furthermore, the perceptions of the external world are said to be based on two properties, known as primary and secondary qualities. Primary qualities are the aspects of an object that exist in the external world. They are independent of our perceptions, and purely belong to the object in question. Examples include height, width, depth, weight and mass. In contrast, secondary qualities are aspects that are contingent upon experiences in our mind. They do not exist in the objects themselves, but rather as ideas in the mind that lead to their perception. Examples include taste, texture, color, scent, and sound.

While Locke was not incorrect in his analysis of an objects properties, his analysis is incomplete. Based on scientific understanding of perception, I propose that secondary qualities do in fact exist externally. However, they do not exist in the way we perceive them. For example, the redness of an apple is a secondary quality of that apple. The redness exists only in the mind in the sense of how it is perceived. However, it is not a purely mental faculty, as the prospects that lead to the creation of a red perception already exist within the apple. The wavelengths of light within the apple are present in the external world. However, that does not make the apple itself red. It simply exhibits a property that when perceived by an observer is perceived by the observer as red. The object itself exhibits properties that produce red, but the red itself exists only in the mind. If correct, then realism still holds credibility over idealism. However, the evidence presented points in favor to the soundness of indirect realism. Thus, this piece will conclude that perception takes on an indirect realist nature. What is problematic to this conclusion is in our uncertainty of the properties of the external world. We cannot guarantee that our perceptions are not merely ideas conceptualized by the mind. Therefore, explanations are needed as to how indirect realism holds to be a superior position to idealism, which again, proposes that reality is mind dependent, and contingent upon our mental properties. The position of idealism, and its comparison to realism, shall be covered in the next upcoming post.

Reality Defined: A Broad Perspective

                                       "Reality leaves much to the imagination."- John Lennon

Reality encompasses the totality of all existence, be it known or unknown. It describes the ever-existing presence of what is within the sum of an all encompassing system. Despite this definition, problems continue to arise in understanding reality. For instance, what is realities nature? Is reality necessary by its own virtue, or does the realm of possibility still exist within reality? Do abstract ideas exist, or are they non-existent byproducts of the mind? Finally, do alternate realities exist? Many of these questions will be tackled in upcoming future posts. For now however, this post shall give a brief overview of distinguishing different schools of thought pertaining to the nature of reality.

Upon investigating schools of thought pertaining to realities nature, two main distinguishing schools of thought emerge: realism and anti-realism, each of which contains many distinct schools and theories on the nature of reality.

                                                       The Nature of Reality

                                 
                                        "All those bodies which compose the frame of the world
                                        have not any substance without a mind."- George Berkeley

Let us begin with realism. Realism holds the view that aspects of reality exist, independent of our perceptions and our conceptualizations. In other words, the existence of a thing is not predicated on whether one perceives the thing or contemplates the things nature. For example, a tree exists of its own accord, and the nature of that tree's existence is not contingent upon whether one perceives the tree or contemplates the concept of tree. The tree simply exists, is its own being, and is independent of the existence of the observer. Two existing, albeit broad sub schools of realism exist, these being direct (or "naïve) realism, and indirect (or "representational") realism. The former argues that the world as perceived by us is reflective of realities true nature. When we look out at a lake, we see the lake in terms of its true nature. The lakes state of being is synonymous with the perception of the observer. However, the latter argues that the reality by which we perceive is an indirect, inaccurate, representative or "copied" representation of reality. For example, the lake by which we perceive is inaccurate to the true existing lake. The ontological nature of the lake is distinct from our perception of the lake, which is indirect, misrepresented, or inaccurate.

In contrast, anti-realism suggests that there is no external reality. Instead, reality, as we understand it, is simply a byproduct of the mind. By this view, existence, and our understanding of it, is mental by nature. Things do not possess an independent existence; instead, they only exist as byproducts, or "qualities" of the mind. The main school of thought is known as idealism (a contrast to materialism, which suggests that reality is purely physical) and has largely fallen out of popularity in the last century. However, this school of thought does still exist, and is still present as a metaphysical explanation of reality.

                                                              Being

                           
                                   "The only thing that is permanent is change."- Heraclitus

Within this all encompassing reality, several different manifestations result. One of which, obviously, is us. We exist, and therefore, we must relate ourselves to this all encompassing reality. This is the purpose of virtually every religious, philosophical and scientific school in existence. All of these schools attempt to answer, what does reality consist of? What is its nature? This is distinct from the previous section, as being attempts to explain the existence of a thing itself. This post covers the "being" of reality, in terms of how it manifests.

In an attempt to explain being, several philosophers have created distinct and opposing metaphysical claims about reality. Parmenides proposed that reality was essentially an all encompassing being, in that it was eternal, never changing, and constantly retaining its form and substance. In direct contrast, Heraclitus proposed that reality was not an eternal state of being, but constantly in a state of becoming. He likened it to a flowing river, in which everything is in constant flux, and nothing stays the same, even for a moment. Eternal change is all there is, and we, along with everything else, exist in a constant state of flow.

Heraclitus's view of reality has been widely influential. One notable philosopher who shared this view of becoming was the Buddha, who proposed that reality was fundamentally impermanent, in that it is always changing. Ignorance of this change leads people to cling to things, which is the root cause of suffering.

                                           Abstract Objects and Properties

                                                     (The Greek philosopher Plato, who argued
                                                      that reality consisted of ideal forms).

When attempting to understand reality, we often view it under the lens of the concrete. We think of physical objects and properties, and often neglect to ponder the existence of the abstract. While some philosophers argue that the abstract is merely a product of human psychology, and not real in the objective sense, others view the abstract as a real aspect of reality, and being just as present in reality as the concrete.

To provide an example, let us look at some of the most famous contrasting viewpoints in philosophy, these being Platonic realism and Aristotelean realism. Plato viewed the abstract as not only existing, but as being the central aspect of reality. Indeed, Plato argued that the reality by which we perceive is not the true nature of reality at all. Instead, reality lied in a realm which Plato dubbed "the realm of ideal forms." The forms in question, are abstract metaphysical entities which were pure in their essence and nature. A form, quite literally, is what it is, and is nothing else, and is perfect. For example, the form of beauty was quite literally beauty itself, and was nothing else but beauty. All other properties that we understand exist in this world as well. Such examples include the form of triangles, chairs, men, color, and the form of the good.

Unlike the world of forms, our world is merely a "shadow realm" to the world of the forms, where the properties of this world are the properties of the forms manifesting imperfectly. For example, the form of beauty may be present in a woman of this world, but no matter how beautiful such a woman is, she will still manifest some aspects of ugliness. Because of this, she may be beautiful, but she is not perfectly beautiful, nor is she beauty in-and-of-itself. As such, she is imperfect, and not the most real manifestation of beauty. This is the case for all properties, as none of them can match the ideal forms. As a result, the forms themselves are the most real objects, while our concrete reality is less real.

Unlike Plato, Aristotle differed substantially in his metaphysics, arguing instead that the concrete is what is most real. Aristotle did argue that forms exist, but they were not abstract, ideal entities. Instead, the true forms were found as an aspect of an object. For example, if one wishes to build a chair, one must have the tools necessary to make the chair, and the matter to do so (Aristotle referred to this as the material cause). However, upon completing the chair, the matter which was used takes on the form of chair (the formal cause). As a result, the real chair is not the abstract form, but the physical chair within which one sits. One cannot sit in the form of chair, nor can they sit in the matter used to create the chair. It is only through combination of a material and formal cause, does one produce the chair. Thus, the chair is more real than the abstract form of chair. This as well, applies to all things. The ideal is not the most real, the concrete individual object is the most real.

                                                    Alternate Realities

                              "Opposites are identical in nature, but different in degree"                                  
                                                          -Hermes Trismegitus
                                                       
In understanding reality, philosophy has a strict doctrine, which they refer to as the law of non-contradiction. This forces a philosopher to not come to a conclusion that is contradictory. For example, something cannot be true and false simultaneously. The problem with this doctrine is that  it's possible, if not probable, that contradiction is a central aspect of reality. This has been demonstrated through theoretical physics.

Theoretical physicists have concluded that the fundamental building blocks of matter consist of microscopic particles known as atoms. The individual features of an atom are contingent upon what element is being studied, but each contains the same types of subatomic particles. In the center of an atom exists the nucleus, which contains protons (positively charged particles) and neutrons (particles with no charge). Surrounding the nucleus is a shell consisting of electrons (negatively charged particles) which rotate around the nucleus. When thinking of rotation, common sense suggests that the electrons must either rotate clockwise or counterclockwise. However, physicists have determined that electrons actually rotate clockwise and counterclockwise simultaneously. This, in-and-of-itself, is a contradiction. Nevertheless, it occurs.

Because contradiction occurs at this level of existence, there is little reason to dispute that it may occur on other levels of reality. Indeed, physics suggests that this is the case. A physics blog provides an example of how this can occur. Lets say that a scientist were to set up an experiment in which an electron detector were attached to a gun, which was aiming at a cat. The detector is designed to activate the gun if it detects the electron traveling clockwise. If the gun does go off, the cat is shot, dead. However, if the electron travels counterclockwise, the detector will not go off, leaving the gun unchanged and the cat still alive. As we have established, electrons travel in both directions simultaneously. As a result, the detector both goes off, and does not. Furthermore, the gun both fires and doesn't fire, and the cat is both alive and dead. All of these outcomes are paradoxical, yet the mathematics of quantum mechanics demonstrate them to be the case. Of course, we never paradoxical outcomes occurring. The reason for this is because of our own nature. When we observe this event happening, our presence influences the flow of events. Through observation, the outcome is forced to collapse into a single event (e.g., dead or not dead cat) despite the fact that both outcomes are occurring. This theory explains the probability that multiple universes exist.

Thousands of years ago, philosopher Hermes Trismegistus produced a series of texts that led to the development of hermeticism. Within this philosophy, seven fundamental truths are expressed in an attempt to explain the fundamental nature of reality. The fourth of these principles (the law of polarity) makes a claim that overlaps with this theory proposed by quantum mechanics. With this law, Hermes proposes that all things that are opposite are merely different ends of a spectrum; that is, they are the same thing. Love/hate, life/death, masculine/feminine, light/dark; all these are essentially of the same essence, the only difference lying in there degree. Through the law of quantum mechanics, the principle of polarity can be extended to outcomes themselves. This suggests that reality is not merely existence of this universe, but is indeed a vast (possibly infinite) multiverse were all possible outcomes are happening simultaneously. Like the other theories presented, I shall cover this in more detail in a future post.

                                                         Conclusion

The conclusion of these piece lies not in the definition for reality, but in the finishing of its introduction. Reality is to vast and to complicated a subject to be covered in a single piece. Do not let that deter you, my reader. The philosophical schools describing reality and the human relationship with reality shall be further elaborated on in many future posts to come. Let this first post merely serve as an introduction for this complex and fascinating subject. Many things might be said and discussed, and this post merely describes the tip of the iceberg for this subject.

I hope my readers enjoyed this first post, and I look forward to what is yet to come.

 

Reality and Existence: An Introduction

What is reality? Why is reality here? IS reality here? Why are we here? What is our purpose? How do we live life properly? How have we come to understand reality? What are we? How is our mind structured? How do we orient ourselves, and connect ourselves, with reality?

These are only a few of the questions that human beings have pondered over the millennia of our existence. Several distinct schools of thought have risen in an attempt to answer these questions. From the primitive religions of ancient humans, to the currently established scientific discipline, reality has been a trifling matter that has yet to be fully understood.

The purpose of this blog is to attempt to answer these questions. This blog seeks to understand the fundamental nature of existence, and the human beings place in that existence, along with the human beings connection with reality. This blog will incorporate from many different fields, predominantly philosophy and psychology. However, many other academic disciplines will be included, such as biology, history, mythology, cosmology, chemistry and physics.

Posts shall be updated weekly if all goes according to schedule. I do take requests. If there is any particular topic of interest to you that you wish to see covered, please leave me a comment down below.

In addition, I shall include an occasional piece of fiction. I aspire to write horror as a hobby, and such narratives will be included intermittently.

Enjoy the blog!