Mind Confronts Matter II
How did an object become an object?
If the term ‘tree’ is omitted from our communicative reference it becomes a non-recognisable object. We use the reference to denote a specific object subject to specific system of communication. We have no idea how an animal can recognises a tree.
Whenever we see an object that has a trunk, branches, leaves, flowers, fruits and roots we can refer to it as a ‘tree’. The whole subject of observation recognised by our sensual-mental system in terms of form and colour becomes inexplicable. There is nothing in the term ‘tree’ that makes it a ‘tree’ except our identification system.
Our agreement on a linguistic reference allows us this recognition. The terms ‘arbre’ and ‘baum’ are communicative among those who are Francophony or germanophony who happen to use these terms to refer to what they recognise as a ‘tree’.
What makes a tree a tree? It is our common awareness. Our experiences with the tree in terms of physical, mental, psychological and spiritual awareness allow for the communicative recognition.
This awareness and hence recognition depends on our mutual consent to denote the object of observation as such. We can mechanically describe the mechanism of identification and to a certain limit.
Here the term ‘identification’ is used in its most artificial reference which is simple awareness and hence recognition by repetition of image-impression impact, which is stored in the memory.
The naked eye stimulating a mental response identifies the ‘tree’ as such through repetitive means of communication.
However; the impact of the ‘tree’ image on our senses does not in any way explain the object itself. It only denotes awareness of its face-features.
The ‘tree’ reduced to its material elements lose immediately its form and colour to become a non-identifiable structure of enigmatic atoms impossible de identify in terms of presence, structure, origin, controlling laws and application of these laws to produce and keep the final product.
For a ‘tree’ to be a such it is submitted to myriads of structures, laws, order, physic-chemical-biological processes that permit the change in a definite life-cycle.
In the same way any object can be reduced to systems of structure, form and colour subject to birth, development, change and disappearance.
This appearance-disappearance allows the object to be recognised by human faculties and is recognised as ‘presence’ or being’. This relation needs a mind to recognise and an object to be recognised.
The recognizing-recognized system itself is a mysterious system where the recognising element namely the mind and the recognisable which is the object are both no recognisable in terms of their presence, structure, origin and finality.
The finality of recognition is only a convenience to share, but the ultimate finality which is the purpose of a thing or an object to exist at all is inaccessible. Neither the mind nor the object of recognition is in the domain of accessible identification.
In the final analysis, the ‘tree’ (as an object symbol reference) and the ‘mind’ (denoting a human being) lose their identity and become inaccessible to knowledge, whether empiric, scientific or otherwise.
Whatever arguments we offer still are on the level of the two enigmas: Mind and Matter.
