Reads: 275  | Likes: 0  | Shelves: 0  | Comments: 0

More Details
Status: Finished  |  Genre: Non-Fiction  |  House: Booksie Classic
I dont know what to say. Iam confused.

Submitted: May 30, 2008

A A A | A A A

Submitted: May 30, 2008




I woke up from a dream and I was very much confused, more than usual. I had a very beautiful dream as if I am a butterfly, flying here and there enjoying nature. I had a friend, who is a psychologist, to whom while discussing about dreams, I mentioned about this dream. The discussion given below is the gist of the actual discussion between us. The confusion, as he put forth, is, is it really me dreaming myself as a butterfly or is it the butterfly dreaming itself as a human now. The mind always believes in whichever state it is (dream or real), that, it is in reality at that point of time.

I personally believe that I am a human dreaming as a butterfly, because only in the so called wakeful state, my mind is more conscious, has the ability to analyze, has time sense, calculate and reason. While in the so called dream state, the mind is lesser conscious and the events are emotion based only. But can it be a lesser developed, emotional mind, dream about itself as a logical mind in the so called wakeful state.

If there is a possibility that the so called wakeful state can be a dream, then why it always starts as waking up from bed and ending as lying down in bed with repetition of events like brushing, eating, etc? Is it a emotional mind’s dream, with organized logical set of events, we call as wakeful state or a logical mind’s dream, with emotional events in random, we call as real dream?

Why in the supposed wakeful state, I recognize both the dream and reality, while in a so called dream I recognize only the present state at that time? Can it be because, as said earlier, the emotional mind being lesser conscious, not able to recognize its dream or the so called reality at that time?

This problem can be overcome by the presence of a second person observer, while the 1st person is dreaming. When the 1st person wakes up and tells a dream, the 2nd person can confirm that the 1st person was sleeping at the time of dream. But when dream and wakefulness itself is questioned, we may not know whether the existence of 2nd person itself is a dream or real. The validity of the opinion of the 2nd person is not acceptable unless his existence is well defined as reality for which we can do nothing. If we bring a 3rd observer inside, it is only going to increase the confusion further.

Actually is it not by our own feel and 2nd person confirmation, we believe our dream and wakeful state? Ok, Is this a problem in the first place? Does this argument exist in reality? Is this argument required for daily life or is it of any scientific importance?

The answer is a big no. This argument has more assumptions with less leading clues and therefore the probability of me not being a human is very less, but still….. the possibility of me being a butterfly is not zero.

What my friend said and latter I accepted is, even the most firm belief can be shaken a bit and questioned and the possibility of being otherwise can be proved. But the pressing issue is not which is true or which is not? The problem is why we are not able to say something as complete truth and something as not? Why an element of belief is required for the acceptance of truth apart from evidence? Is it due to lack of evidence or lack of understanding? Even in smaller objects or events, even the truth of their mere existence needs an element of belief subconsciously.

Say if there is a pen on the table, how do you accept its lying there as truth? By your vision? Is human vision entirely reliable? Don’t humans have visual hallucination? We generally believe our mind is normal and hence we believe our eyes. We can get a 2nd or 3rd person confirmation for corroboration. But once we require a confirmation, it means we don’t believe our mind and eyes as normal. Then the mere existence of a 2nd person may be our hallucination, leave alone his opinion. But we are expected to believe our senses or else their very existence is meaningless. The nature that decided our senses also decided our basic beliefs. Therefore by reasonable belief and evidence we can say a object or event as probably truthful, while the possibility of being otherwise cannot be ruled out.

Is it true that we are suspended between thruths and untruths and education and experience makes us move more and more towards the end of truth? And then what is the climax? Have we seen anybody who has reached the absolute truth? Why humans die before that? Are we achieving after death? Is there a answer?

© Copyright 2019 indian ink. All rights reserved.

Add Your Comments: