Saturday, June 25, 2011

Being Alone with One’s Thoughts

   Western culture does not foster the idea of someone being alone with their thoughts.  Everywhere we turn there is one form of stimulation or another, both legal and illegal, which entices us and encourages us not to be reflexive. This is most unfortunate.  One of the things which separate us from other animals is our ability to reflect upon our thoughts and ask such questions as “Why am I here?” and “What is give greater meaning to my life?”  If we do not take the time to reflect upon such questions throughout our lives we might as well be a dog. 

   This need for constant stimulation is very prevalent in Western society, but is not always found in other cultures around the world.  For example, Russian society has always had a more reflexive mindset.  This may be changing now that Western culture has made its way into Russia and that part of the world. Hopefully, it will continue to endure into the next generation.

   In an interview, Russian film director Andrei Tarkovsky [Андрей Арсеньевич Тарковский] (1932-1986) was asked what message he would like to leave for young people.  Tarkovsky said that they should learn to love solitude and to be able to be alone with themselves. He believed that young people were carrying out noisy and aggressive actions in an effort not to be alone. He felt that as individual must learn to be on his own as a child.  This is not the same as being alone. He is referring to the idea of not becoming bored with oneself, which is sees as a very dangerous symptom, almost a disease. 1

      The insights of Andrei Tarkovsky are not unique.  Over the past several months I have had an opportunity to assist many people from the former Soviet Union to learn English and Tarkovsky’s insights are quite common among many of them.  I have had the good fortune to be able to speak with sixteen year olds in several of the former Soviet Republics, including Russia, who are extremely self-reflexive and deeply philosophical.  While I am sure that I can find such young people in the West, they would be much rarer.

     There is a great difference between being lonely and being alone. Many people are alone and lead happy lives. It may behoove us to study some of their traits, because many of us are likely to be alone at some point in our lives. Points to consider: our culture has a high divorce rate; statistics show that wives outlive husbands; and our society advocates self-sufficiency and independence.

     Contrary to the opinion of many people, the elderly are not the loneliest among us. It is young people who are most lonely, and herein may lie some of the differences between being lonely and being alone.

    Many elderly people have developed traits or habits that help them be comfortable with themselves alone. They have found ways to keep busy mentally. Many rely on good memories of a deceased spouse for comfort while relishing the peace and quiet of a household void of too much activity. They have reached the point where their status quo is calmness.

   The young, however, are subject to a wide range of moods. They may be up one morning and down that evening or up and down several times in a given day. They are often bored and restless to the point of being unhappy for no clear reason. When they are not sought after and included in all activities of their peers, their self-esteem decreases.

    Being alone can actually help to inspire creativity.  Writing and painting are two means of artistic expression which require a certain amount of time alone with one’s thoughts. Spending time alone can help one to develop a creative outlet that they may never have realized that they possessed.

     What is not being advocated is living in isolation.  Human beings are social animals.  We need contact with other people for our own mental well-being as well as giving us an opportunity to share our thoughts and feelings with others and perhaps gain a new perspective as a result of these interactions. If one spends all of his or her time alone it is possible to become deluded and there is a great possibility that such a person can become severely depressed.

     This is not the same as having to be surrounded by noise and stimulation on a regular basis.  Such constant stimulation has actually lead to a very limited attention span, a decreased interest in reading, and a desire to receive information in the form of thirty second “sound bites”.  None of these things encourage the expansion of the human mind.  In fact, they are forms of depravation. The world of classic literature is lost when people do not read and it is difficult to have an intelligent discussion about important issues when one relies solely upon “sound bites” since they offer no in-depth insight into the issue at hand, but are designed to be almost a form of entertain in themselves.

   In Western society the idea of silence scares many people.  It is almost impossible to drive any distance without having to turn on the car stereo.  When we are home, it is almost essential that either the television or internet is functioning lest there be silence.  There is nothing to fear from silence.  Reading a classic novel is not something which should be feared or avoided at all cost, but something to be relished.  Silence can help one to use their imagination which also aids in creativity.

   The fact is that everyone needs time to be alone.  They need time to reflect upon their life and see if what they are engaged in is actually benefiting or hurting them.  This is a basic human need; however, it is become lost because of our societal emphasis on constant stimulation.  Periodic stimulation is not a bad thing, but constant stimulation is not benefiting us.  In fact, it is actually making us numb.  How much stimulation can one person actually deal with?  Are we really such shallow and superficial creatures that if we experience silence for a reasonable length of time that we will go insane?   Does constantly engaging in some activity, in order to avoid being alone, actually make us more human?

     If one engages in the practice of being alone, from time to time, he or she might find that they actually benefit from it.  It can be both mentally and spiritually renewing.  This is one of the reasons that many religions encourage their members to go on retreat. 
  
    Part of what it means to be human is that we have the ability to engage in contemplation.  This cannot be done in an atmosphere of constant stimulation. One needs to be alone and have time to reflect.  While this thought may be scary for some, the idea that, by not doing, we are becoming less human should be even scarier.

                                                  End Notes

1)                “Interview with Andrei Tarkovsky, part 2” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oRTH659KBA&NR=1 
2)                “Being Alone without Being Lonely” by Ben Martin, Psych. D. http://psychcentral.com/lib/2006/being-alone-without-being-lonely/








Tuesday, June 21, 2011

The Kindness of Others

   The simplest acts of kindness on the part of one person can be understood as signs of weakness by someone else.  There are some who have a certain childlike innocence about them which is often mistaken for either naiveté or stupidity. Has our society become so blind to the concept of basic human goodness that we feel the need to attempt to take advantage of someone or show our superiority over that person simply because they are kind and gentle?
   There was a time when we expected such innocence from children, but even this is slowly being taken away.  Children are exposed to so many things on the internet or television which only serve to undermine their innocence and make them into “young adults” way before they are ready for this. 
    The truth is that these issues are not unique to our generation. While earlier generations did not have to deal with the internet or other factors, there were those who would prey upon adults with childlike innocence and attempt to ruin their lives.  They would take advantage of this person’s basic goodness and pervert it so that they were able to manipulate this person. 
     Fyodor Dostoevsky (1821-1881) wrote about such a person in his novel, The Idiot.  The main character is Prince Myshkin.  He is such a beautiful soul that he is often taken for an idiot, and indeed, he considers himself to be stupid. However, while he suffers from mental illness, he is only “simple” in the sense that he cannot grasp evil. He thinks good of everyone he meets and expects that everyone else does too. This simple acceptance of people, and his simple way of living, leads those around him to befriend him and yet to feel themselves smarter and better than him. 1
     He is compassionate, benevolent, patient and forgiving. He arrives in Russia at the age of twenty six having spent four years in Switzerland treating his epilepsy and mental illness. He refers to himself as an 'idiot' because of this illness. The reason for his arrival to St. Petersburg is to start a new life with the help of his distant relative, Yelizaveta Prokofievna Yepanchin, General Yepanchin's haughty yet sensible wife. At the General's house he is attracted to Aglaya, the General’s youngest daughter, as a new hope. He is, to some extent, an amateur psychologist who can find out a great deal about people looking at their faces, pictures or handwriting. This ability draws him compassionately toward Nastasya Fillipovna as he sees great suffering in her and he wants to save her from self-destruction.
On the matters of the real world, as the world that people find it necessary to operate in, the Prince is not able to detect the proportions of things- as he himself puts it. This is because his view of the world is of no deceit or make over. He views all the people as good and debases himself in comparison to them. He has no definite tact to go about his objectives and insists on going to it openly and frankly. His insistence on doing good to all the people crosses the boundary of human limitations and practicability. In the end his actions end up hurting more than doing good. He gets obsessed with trying to save Nastasya. Parfyon Rogozhin out of his love for Nastasya, and seeing she loves the Prince nearly tries to kill him. In the end, however, he stabs Nastasya to death. Prince Myshkin chooses Nastasya over Aglaya overlooking their engagement and her love towards him. This stains the family reputation of the Yepanchins and devastates Aglaya's true love.
    His character is of a good ideal Christian and he does good to the people around him expecting them to be the same as himself. This of course isn't how the world operates and not knowing the boundary line or the proportion of things, his actions end up blowing the hopes of a new life for him to smithereens. In the end the results are devastating to himself and to the people around him. Thus he is an irony and a paradox to the modern society: Is the modern society so twisted that acts of simple goodness is equivalent to acts of idiocy? Is an ideal Christian and his conception of good so basic and simple that modern world sophistication looks down upon such acts of goodness? 2
    In contrast, there is Parfyon Rogozhin.  He is a rich merchant's son who meets the Prince on a train, by which they are both going to St. Petersburg. Rogozhin is going home from hiding because he squandered his father's money to buy presents for Nastasya. Now that his father had died he is going to claim his inheritance.
    Rogozhin is the sort of person who when they want something do not stop at anything and go to any extreme to obtain it. He is a man driven by passion. His fate is intertwined with that of the Prince and Nastasya Fillipovna. Rogozhin is a rich man so he is an indulgent in his passions. His love for Nastasya is a full fervor passion, with both love and hate. She totally possesses him. When she asks him to buy her something for one hundred thousand rubles he does without a word of protest. When Nastasya runs away from him to Myshkin he follows her swallowing reproach and humiliation from her. He is totally mastered by this passion and to fulfill it squanders his wealth, time and energy. In the end when he knows for sure that he can never have Nastasya forever he kills her. He isn't totally bad, as many of his conversations with the Prince reveal, it is only that the passionate love for Nastasya that ruins him.
   Here we have a character that would be considered by most to be “self-absorbed”.  He wants what he wants when he wants it.  While he may be completely bad, he is guided by his passions and will do whatever is necessary to accomplish his goal.  Such a person would see someone like Prince Myshkin as foolish.  We have all met people like Rogozhin in our lives.  They can be very charming and personable; however, do not stand between them and what they desire.  Such people would turn against you in an instant and not even feel the slightest tinge of guilt because their only motivation is their own desires. 
   Dostoyevsky's motives in writing The Idiot stem from his desire to depict the "positively good man". This man is naturally likened to Christ in many ways. Dostoyevsky uses Myshkin's introduction to the Petersburg society as a way to contrast the nature of Russian society at the time and the isolation and innocence of this good man. This is highlighted by his conflicts and relationship with Rogozhin. Indeed, Myshkin and Rogozhin are contrasted from the outset. Myshkin is associated with light, Rogozhin with dark. For example, in their initial descriptions on the train, Myshkin is described as having light hair and blue eyes, while Rogozhin has "dark features". Rogozhin's house is submerged in darkness, with iron bars on the windows. He is not only an embodiment of darkness, but surrounded by it. The two characters are clearly antithetical. If Myshkin should be seen as Christ, Rogozhin could easily be seen as the Devil. "Rog", in Russian, means horn, adding credence to such an assertion, although the primary association of his name is with rogozha ("bast"), possibly hinting at his humble origins. The novel effectively serves to show the folly of altruistic kindness in a society that is rife with self-advancement and unscrupulous behavior, as Myshkin is consistently manipulated and exploited by others around him.

    Despite their difference, Myshkin and Rogozhin are both after Nastasya Filippovna—good and bad (and mediocre, in the image of Ganya) strive for the same thing. Love itself is shown in various manifestations, spurred by various motives. While vain Ganya wishes to marry Nastasya in order that he might, through acquisition of a large dowry, spark some of the individuality which he senses he lacks; Rogozhin loves Nastasya with a deep passion. Myshkin, however, loves her out of pity, out of Christian love. This love for her supersedes even the romantic love he has for Aglaya. It is important to note that Aglaya developed a great appreciation for Myshkin's purity of heart and capacity for empathic love, even which he felt for Nastasya. Aglaya and her sisters came to identify Myshkin with the protagonist of a famous Russian poem by Alexander Pushkin (1799-1837), "The Poor Knight", because of the Prince's quixotic, tragic quest to defend the honor of Nastasya in the face of the ridicule, and at times contempt, of all his acquaintances. And she grew to love him not in spite of this, but even more so because of it. At a gathering at the Prince's home that included her family and several of the Prince's friends, Aglaya flushes hotly when Kolya enigmatically and ironically declares "There's nothing better than the Poor Knight!" Though the comment is partially mocking him, in the depths of Aglaya's heart she agrees with this fully. In the end, though, Aglaya cannot completely eradicate her jealousy of Nastasya, and cannot measure up to the heights of the Prince's sympathetic love when he apparently scorns her in a final effort to save Nastasya.

   There is a parallel between Rogozhin and the Russian upper-class society. The materialistic society which praises the values Myshkin represents and professes itself to be "good” cannot accommodate Prince Myshkin; Rogozhin, though he truly loves Nastasya, commits murder in the end. Nastasya herself has been corrupted by a depraved society. Her beauty and initial innocence have led Totsky (perhaps the most repugnant of all the characters in the novel) to keep her as a concubine and she falls into a quasi-madness, so strongly aching for freedom that she rejects moderate behaviors in favor of the extremity of running off with Rogozhin.3
    There certainly is evidence that people are becoming more depraved in our own society as well.  Common decency is not all that common any more. People are treating others as a means to an end, instead of as an end in themselves (which is what they truly are).  In our own society kindness is very often mistaken for weakness.  Living according to what were once known as “Judeo-Christian values” actually makes one appear like a simpleton according to our present culture.
     Throughout history there have always been people who have taken advantage of others and there have always been those who had difficulty understanding how others can be genuinely kind without expecting something in return.   The challenge now is that we no longer live in a society which even fosters such values as altruism. In earlier periods of history there were those who would take advantage of others, but the culture, as a whole, encouraged altruism and helping one’s neighbor simply because it is the right thing to do.  Unfortunately, that period of history is now just distant memory.  
      Whether or not our society will change in the future depends upon what type of values we wish to encourage.  Based upon what is going on at the present time, it does not appear that altruism will be encouraged any time soon and we will actually grow further apart as human beings instead of coming closer together.

 
                                                  End Notes

3)    “The Idiot” (novel) http://pediaview.com/openpedia/The_Idiot_(novel)




Wednesday, June 15, 2011

The Power of Love in our Lives

  There are few things which transcend time and place with greater force than human emotions.  We might have a great deal of difficulty understand someone else’s culture or the time period in which they were living; however, we can immediately relate to their experiences of loss at the death of a loved one, happiness at the birth of a child, or the feeling of being in love.
   William Shakespeare described the anguish of forbidden love in his play “Romeo and Juliet”.  Romeo and Juliet were from two different families that did not get along and they had to see each other in secret.  The pain these two lovers experienced was so great that the play ends with each of them taking their own life.
    This same theme of forbidden love was expressed in The Letters of Abelard and Heloise.  Peter Abelard, a well-known philosopher in the eleventh century is hired to tutor a young woman. They eventually fall in love, have a child, and then secretly get married.  When her uncle finds out about this, Heloise is banished to a convent and Abelard eventually becomes a monk.  In spite of their new vocations, these two are still in love and their letters express their very strong feelings for each other.
    The love between Antony and Cleopatra was one of the factors which helped to undo the Egyptian empire.  Mark Antony and Empress Cleopatra fell in love and, against the advice of the Roman government, the two of them got married.  The Roman army became deeply concerned about the increasing power of the Egyptians and eventually went to war with them.  Antony, who was fighting against his countrymen, received a false report that Cleopatra had been killed.  He became so distraught that he fell on his own sword.
    When Cleopatra heard the news that Antony had taken his own life she ended her own life. Such is the power of love. It can lead one to believe that it is better to no longer be alive than to go on living without the one you love.
     A leading medieval poet of Iran, Nizami of Ganje is known especially for his romantic poem “Layla and Majnun”.  Inspired by an Arab legend, Layla and Majnun is a tragic tale about unattainable love. It had been told and retold for centuries, and depicted in manuscripts and other media such as ceramics for nearly as long as the poem has been penned. Layla and Qays fall in love while at school. Their love is observed and they are soon prevented from seeing one another. In misery, Qays banishes himself to the desert to live among and be consoled by animals. He neglects to eat and becomes emaciated. Due to his eccentric behavior, he becomes known as Majnun (madman). There he befriends an elderly Bedouin who promises to win him Layla’s hand through warfare. Layla’s tribe is defeated, but her father continues to refuse her marriage to Majnun because of his mad behavior, and she is married to another. After the death of Layla’s husband, the old Bedouin facilitates a meeting between Layla and Majnun, but they are never fully reconciled in life. Upon death, they are buried side by side. The story is often interpreted as an allegory of the soul’s yearning to be united with the divine.1
     When we think of love stories, we often reflect upon the warm sentiment of two souls being united as one and living out the remainder of their lives in peace and harmony.  However, this is rarely the case.  Love is often painful.  There are few people who can hurt us more than someone we love.  A glance, a gesture, or even a single word can cut us quicker and deeper than any knife ever made.  
     If a love relationship goes wrong, it can go terribly wrong, but if the relationship is strong in can be a marvelous thing to behold. The expressions of caring, compassion, and affection between two people who are genuinely in love can melt even these coldest of hearts.  Love can also inspire a person to great acts of heroism which they would never have seen themselves capable of had it not been for the relationship that they share with this other person.
     Rather early in the novel, Master and Margarita (Мастер и Маргарита) by Mikhail Bulgakov (1891-1940) we are introduced to “the Master”, a bitter author, whose historical novel about Pontius Pilate and Jesus Christ has been rejected. He becomes so despondent that he burns his manuscript and turns his back on the world, including his lover, Margarita.
     In part two of Master and Margarita we are finally introduced to Margarita, who represents human passion and refuses to despair of her lover or his work. She is made an offer by Satan, and accepts it, becoming a witch with supernatural powers on the night of his Midnight Ball, which coincides with the night of Good Friday, linking all three elements of the book together, since the Master's novel also deals with this same spring full moon when Christ's fate is sealed by Pontius Pilate and he is crucified in Jerusalem.        
     Later, after learning to fly, she enters naked into the world of the night, flies over the deep forests and rivers of Russia, bathes, and, cleansed, returns to Moscow as the anointed hostess for Satan's great Spring Ball. Standing by his side, she welcomes the dark celebrities of human history as they pour up from the bowels of Hell.
    She survives this ordeal without breaking, borne up by her unswerving love for the Master and her unflinching acknowledgment of darkness as part of human life. For her pains and her integrity, she is rewarded well. Satan's offer is extended to grant Margarita her deepest wish. She chooses to liberate the Master and live in poverty and love with him. In an ironic ending, neither Satan nor God think this is any kind of life for good people, and the couple leave Moscow with the Devil, as its cupolas and windows burn in the setting sun of Easter Saturday.
    Margarita could have had anything she wanted.  She could have chosen to become the wealthiest woman in the world, the ruler of some country, or become the wife of the most handsome man of her day.  However, she chose none of these things.  Instead, she chose to live in poverty with the Master. 
    This is the power of love in our lives.  It can inspire us to see what it truly important and be willing to forego anything else so that we will be able to attain that which is most important to us.      


                                 End Notes

1 “Top Twenty Most Famous Love Stories in History and Literature” http://amolife.com/reviews/top-20-most-famous-love-stories-in-history-and-literature.html

Friday, June 3, 2011

Heidegger's Tool Analysis and the “Error Detector”

  In order to properly understand the philosophical approach of Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) to school of Phenomenology it is necessary to raise the main question for Heidegger, which was, “what is the meaning of being?” A major temporal ecstasy for Heidegger was the present. The present is referred to as the state of “fallenness” for Heidegger. This involves Being alongside other entities including other dasein. Dasein is Heidegger’s term for a human being in the world. Being presents itself in its totality.
  Heidegger’s approach to the meaning of being is a radical critique of the traditional metaphysical view of presence. Being is the play of “absence within a presence”. Pre-predicative experience is always projecting itself to the future. What is absent is more real than what is present.
  All of this is another kind of “knowledge”. This can be described as an original collection of “Many into One”. The principle of collection many into one is originally stated in Plato’s theory of Forms which explains how different entities (trees, houses, women, etc.) can participate in the Form of Beauty. According to Plato’s theory, everything we see in the world (the real world) around us is actually an image of a Form which exists in the real-real world (Plato’s name for the world of Forms). For example, when we see a chair it is actually an image of the Form chairness which exists in the real-real world, according to Plato.
  The many entities (particulars) are gathered into one Form (universal). For Heidegger, this collection takes place pre-scientifically and pre-philosophically.
  Our experience of nature is mediated through artifacts. We understand the world as a collective whole. For St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) the whole comes first as well. We always know particulars through knowing universals. For example, the human face is seen as a whole rather than as individual parts. All physical reality is seen as a whole.
  Edmund Husserl (1859-1938), known as the father of Phenomenology, referred to the world in which we live as the Lebendswelt (life-world). This life-world is historical as well as social and cultural. Modern science is not geared to study the life-world. For modern science this “life-world” must be empirically provable in order to be real.
  Phenomenology helps us to account for things such as ethics and values which cannot be empirically proven. If modern science is simply based upon reason, then the western world is in crisis given the enormous impact which modern science has had and is having on our world.
  For Heidegger one must begin his or her discussion of being by looking at the world around us. Things are perceived from a sense of concern for the world. “Understanding” is a new interpretation of imagination. Imagination opens up the realm of the possible to us. The thing most primordially experienced in the world is equipment. We never have direct access to mere things or direct knowledge of them. Being is not pure presence for Heidegger, but involves an existential engagement with the world.
  We must use things in order to be able to understand them. A pen is understood through writing rather than through scientific examination. Dasein is the place where being happens. The traditional vocabulary of philosophy must be put out of play to allow a pen to appear as it is. Heidegger uses terms such as “in-order-to”, “ready-to-hand”, and “present-at-hand” to describe this reality and these terms will be defined later.
  What is the essence of equipment? There is no one piece of equipment for Heidegger since all equipment is relational to the totality of equipment. Keep in mind that Heidegger believes that things go from whole to parts. Dasein understands being in a pre-predicative way. He refers to this pre-predicative way of understanding as “wonder”. Every piece of equipment has an “in-order-to” quality. We use a pen in order to write.
  This equipment is relational to things around it. In the same way that man is a relational being who does not exist in a vacuum, tools have a relational quality. However, it is important to note that Heidegger does not consider dasein to be tools in any way. The meaning of a pen is found between the pen and other pieces of equipment in totality.
  The world is technological with regard to the mediation through equipment in the world. There has always been a prejudice toward theory and against practice. Aristotle, in The Metaphysics (Book I), deals with the issue of theoretical knowledge (theoria) vs. practical knowledge (praxis). Theoretical knowledge is knowledge for the sake of knowledge. Praxis has a much more “practical” dimension. This does not mean that praxis is purely utilitarian, by nature. Aristotle states that “By nature, man desires knowledge.” This is evident with regard to the fact that one of the most often asked questions by a child is “Why?”
  According to Aristotle, hearing and seeing are two ways to come to know something. Man has memory (even some animals have sense memory); however, what makes man unique from all other animals is art and reason. Man can ask “Why?” Another topic discussed was the value of experience over theory. People who simply have experience may not know the cause of something, but they can explain it to others. People who have theoretical knowledge understand causes and very often can teach; however, they lack practical experience. The best is a blend of both.
  For Heidegger, praxis is more important since it involves existential engagement with world. Theoria (theory) is another kind of praxis. It is another kind of “seeing”. As Heidegger’s Tool Analysis is discussed further the importance of “seeing” will become more evident.
  Heidegger’s insight that the world is technological was a response to Karl Marx. Labor, for Heidegger, is approached from the standpoint of metaphysics. Heidegger’s theory is both holistic and ecological. The “in order to” quality of tools provides an understanding of the relationship between things and the fact that the world is seen as a whole instead of a collection of parts clearly demonstrates this holistic approach to philosophical thought. For Heidegger, the meaning of tools is found in the space between one tool and another within the totality. Spaces are what are genuinely experienced.
  Dasein operates out of a sense of “concern” for the world around him. The world matters to us so our understanding of the use of tools is subordinate to our concern for the world. Knowledge is in regard to concerns or interests. A hammer can only manifest itself to us as a hammer when we use it. Tradition says, according to such philosophers as René Descartes (1596-1650), that the only way to “know” a hammer is to step back and view it objectively (disinterestedly).
   Being is substance for Aristotle. Heidegger states that being can only be “ready-to-hand”. Reflecting upon a pen is “present-at-hand”. Ready-to-hand is a much fuller knowledge than present-at-hand since it involves existential engagement rather than mere reflection.
  The notion of forms for Plato comes from tool use according to Heidegger. However, Plato never considered what Heidegger refers to as “ready-to-hand”. A tool conceals itself when it is ready-to-hand. The tool must withdraw from our explicit attention. Tools have to be absent otherwise they are present-at-hand. Beings are both present and absent for us according to Heidegger. Once considered, this is all based upon human experience and is quite logical.
   Heidegger is shifting sight from the eyes to other parts of the body. Sight is in the hands through tool use. This is a pre-predicative looking around (knowing). Understanding of being is pre-scientific at the level of tool use. Hands could not use equipment if they did not have this “sight”.
   The sight in the hands is in the work to be done. This involves circumspective concern. It lies at the basis of seeing. We look around at the environment. We want to know the world because we have a concern for God. Being is only present if it is absent.
   A pen’s being exists as ready-to-hand as long as the pen conceals itself. Work gathers many pieces of equipment into one whole. At the level of theory, one can have a re/collection of his overall experience.
Being participates in beings through readiness-to-hand. There is no subjective coloring. Man does not see something as present-at-hand and then give it meaning. Meaning is found through tool use. Cognition puts readiness-to-hand out of play.
   While tool use involves readiness-to-hand, are there circumstances under which tools become present-at-hand at the praxis level on a daily basis? The answer is yes! There are three main events which could take place to cause this. First, a tool breaking makes the ready-to-hand relationship noticeable since the tool then lacks the “in order to” quality. Secondly, missing tools can do the same thing and for the same reason. Thirdly, when one tool becomes an obstacle for another tool, the first tool becomes present-at-hand to the craftsman immediately. The breaking of a tool is a manifestation of a lack of determinacy. A lack of determinacy leads one to ask the question, “Why?” There is no motivation to look and see in terms of the approach of modern technology since there is rarely a lack of determinacy. Predictability causes one to operate on automatic pilot.
   According to Natalia Bekhtereva, a Russian scientist, there is a new type of “seeing” which she refers to as error detectors.  The new type of “seeing” works, as follows, ' The error detector ' constantly compares those events were are presently occurring, to the 'proper' stereotype laid in memory and if something is not right it sends out a 'disturbing' signal. Here a classical example of how it works: A person leaves the house and suddenly has the sensation that she has forgotten to take something or left something on. She does not remember what it is that she may have forgotten, but in her mind it is as if this signal 'lights up' and says ' Stop! '. Going back inside, she detects, that she has left the lights on, for example, or is even worse, an iron.1
   We might conclude that this is an example of intuition; however, Professor Bekhtereva is saying that this disturbing signal is actually a part of our brain chemistry.  It appears, that in our brain there are populations of cells which respond to errors. They are located in different areas, namely, in the sub cortex and cortex of the brain.
    We have felt that we came across an interesting phenomenon which is part of our basic brain mechanism, akin to conditioned reflexes, according to Professor Bekhtereva, tells, but at the same time we were afraid to admit it to ourselves.  We did not trust that such could things could occur within us, it sounded too good to be true.  At once we named this phenomenon ' the error detector ', but in our first article we did not dared mention it. 
    This was astounding phenomenon for which Russian scientists received little, if any credit. Scientific inquiry is meant to be a search for the truth, regardless of where such truth leads us or who discovers this truth.  Even though this phenomenon was discovered in 1968 in Russia, most American and other Western scientists do not reference the work of Professor Bekhtereva in their journal articles. 
     One such example is from a letter sent to Professor Bekhtereva by Don Tucker, a research scientist at the University of Oregon: “Dear Dr. Bekhtereva, I thank you for the list of the published works of your laboratory which you sent us. I regret that we have not quoted them in our article. I knew about your researches; however, have not had time ' to catch ' the employee prepared our material for publication.  By all means, next time we shall try to make mention of your work in our article.”  I cannot imagine any American or other western scientist who would find this answer acceptable.  Russian scientists do not find this acceptable either; however, they have no one to turn to in order to protest. 
   In regard to Heidegger and his work, Professor Bekhtereva and her colleagues discovered a new way of “seeing”.   Such seeing not only takes place in the eyes and hands, but now, according to Professor Bekhtereva is actually part of the makeup of the human brain.  This “seeing” takes place instinctively.  A person walks out of their home and has a sense that they left something on.  One way to describe this experience is that the mind is “seeing” that there is something wrong and alerting the body to this. 
   In his Tool Analysis, Heidegger writes about the fact that when we are engaged in some form of work we operate on automatic pilot (my phrase).   It is only when something takes place which interferes with our work that we become aware of everything around us.  For example, a person is driving in their car when suddenly they hear a strange noise coming from the engine. Prior to hearing this noise this person was simply driving along as if on automatic pilot.  However, now she has heard this noise she becomes aware of every sound that her car is making. The “error detector” operates in the same way as that strange engine noise.  It alerts us to the fact that something is wrong and we become more attuned to the world around us.  
    The concept of the “error detector” is a fascinating scientific discovery which has ramifications not only in the area of science, but philosophy as well.  It gives us a new insight into how the human mind works and shows us that “seeing” is a multi-dimensional process. This concept provides us with an additional tool which we can use to discover the truth.


                                                            End Notes

1)     “Error detectors of Natalia Bekhtereva”  "Rossiyskaya Gazeta" - federal issue № 3448


The Absurdity of Reality

   From a practical standpoint, many of the events of our daily life can appear to be very random and have no direct connection to any other events in our life. While it is true that faith can give meaning and purpose to one’s life, the fact remains that, in many cases, even our faith will often raise more questions than answers when it comes to why certain things happen the way that they do.
    I am not advocating that the universe is entirely random and any attempt to make sense of it is completely futile.  There is order in the universe; however, it exist side-by-side with chaos.  The idea of order and chaos co-existing is certainly nothing new.  In fact, it was proposed by many of the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers. This idea was also proposed by Rabbi Isaac Luria (1534-1572) 1. 
     Following the Bolshevik revolution, Russian society experienced its own form of chaos.  Czar Nicholas II and his family had been executed and V.I. Lenin and his supporters were either deporting or killing the intelligentsia because they found these highly educated individuals to be a threat to the new system of government that they imposing on the Russian people. 
  In was during this period of time that Mikhail Bulgakov (1891-1940) wrote his most famous novel, Master and Margarita (Мастер и Маргарита).  This novel is challenging to read, even in Russian; however, it contains many very important insights which are applicable to other societies as well. There are many themes contained within this novel; however, I will focus on only one theme, namely “absurdity”.  
   Russia has always had a very deeply religious history and the Bolsheviks knew that if their new system of government was going to work they would have to destroy any connection between the Russian people and their religious traditions. In Master and Margarita, two of the characters are discussing their belief that Jesus Christ did not truly exist when they are approached by a third man who wishes to enter into their conversation. What these two men did not know is that this third man, Woland, is actually the devil. There have been arguments introduced by various literary critics that the character of Woland is actually a representation of Joseph Stalin.
   The acts of the devil Woland and his retinue in Moscow seem, at first sight, to be carried out for no reason. From the beginning, when Woland predicts the unlikely circumstances of Berlioz's beheading, to the end, when Behemoth stages a shoot-out with the entire police force, there seems to be no motivation other than sheer mischief. Much of what happens seems to be absurd. However, when you look deeper into it, it does not appear to be that absurd. Well, at least no more absurd than reality itself. Absurdism is a philosophy holding that humans exist in a meaningless, irrational universe, which is impossible to explain in a rational way why there is life and that all efforts meant to explain the essentials of the universe are doomed to fail. According to the absurdists human suffering is the result of wasted efforts of individuals to find a reason or a meaning in the absurd chasm of existence. At first sight Master and Margarita seems to have absurdist characteristics.
After a while, though, their trickery reveals a pattern of preying upon the greedy, who think they can reap benefits they have not earned, just because they served the people in power without asking questions. For example, when a bribe is given to the chairman of the tenants' association, Bosoi, Woland tells Korovyov to "fix it so that he doesn't come here again." Bosoi is then arrested, which punishes him for exploiting his position. Similarly, the audience that attends Woland's black magic show is delighted by a shower of money only to find out the next day that they are holding blank paper.  The women who thought they were receiving fine new clothes later find themselves in the streets in their underwear. These deceptions appear mean-spirited and pointless, but the victims in each case are blinded by their interest in material goods and dropped all previously cherished moral values as soon as they had the opportunity to benefit from their greed.
   Bulgakov's life was highly influenced by Stalin's regime, which also can be called absurd. The following story is only one of the dozens of examples. Stalin once ordered to arrest a mine director. The mine had collapsed and Stalin suspected the director of sabotage. "Sabotage" is a word that was often used in the Soviet Union when megalomaniac projects appeared to be unfeasible. The director was interrogated and tortured until he "confessed" that he had acted under orders from the German government. When the chief of police reported this, Stalin did not believe it. For one reason or another, he was convinced that it was not the German, but the French government who was the culprit. So he ordered them to "interrogate" the director again. This time he "confirmed" Stalin's version. What's more, he recognized that he had tried to mislead Stalin by blaming the Germans for it. Such examples were common practice in the Soviet Union in that time. The people often reacted in an absurd way too. This can be seen in many situations and details in the novel. For example, when Woland calls Mogarych - the man who had taken the Master's basement when he was in the psychiatric hospital - he was "in nothing but his underwear, though with a suitcase in his hand for some reason and wearing a cap". It looks like an absurd detail, but it refers to the fact that under the Stalin terror every Soviet citizen had always a suitcase ready with the most necessary things, just in case of un unexpected visit from the secret police at night. 2
    These are just a few examples of what, at first glance, appear as absurd in this novel, but becomes more understandable once the reader understands more of the historical events which were taking place at the time.  Here in the United States, we have no concept of the secret police unexpectedly visiting us in the middle of the night so that we must be ready at any moment to possibly be arrested and imprisoned without a proper trial. 
      The idea of being tortured until you “confess” to your crime is something completely foreign to residents of the United States, but this goes on in many countries of the world even today. 
    While we are not experiencing what took place in the Soviet Union during the reign of Joseph Stalin, we are experiencing our own issues.  The United States, which was once the “envy of the entire world” because of our educational system has become very lax.   American students do not read at the level that they once did and independent/ critical thinking is something which is no longer taught.  Our students are more interested in simply remembering whatever they need to know in order to pass a particular examination and then summarily forget whatever they had learned.   There is no effort to imbibe what they have learned so that it can become a part of who they are. 
     Instead of critically thinking about a particular subject, students are content with idea of being told what to think.  They may not express this idea in such terms, but if they do not engage in critical thinking the outcome is the same.  This may appear absurd, at first; however, there is a certain amount of reasoning which is behind it. 
     One of the challenges with educating the people is that those in charge may actually be confronted by the very people they have educated.   By not teaching someone to think critically it is possible to make them more compliant.  Those who do think critically and question what is going on will quickly be referred to as “trouble makers”, “negative”, or “dissidents” and can more easily be removed or silenced.    
       How much longer this will continue is based upon two important questions. First, are we willing to acknowledge that this is happening? Secondly, are we willing to do something about it? 
                                                          End Notes
1)    “Restoring the Divine Sparks to Their Source” http://heideggerm1.blogspot.com/2011/02/restoring-divine-sparks-to-their-source.html