Inner Space: Finding Reality?
In, 'Remarks on Existentialism: Boredom, Anxiety and Freedom,' Jack R Ernest,(2015), said that, 'happiness and freedom can only be discovered from within.' I would suggest that the inner life is the most central aspect of human life and for our searching for answers.
The behaviouristist B F Skinner dismissed the role of inner experiences, and for many, discovery is focused on outer exploration. This happens both within questing to find answers about reality and in the sphere of finding meaning and happiness.
However, the importance of the inner world began with Socrates and continued within the psychology of introspection. One of the most evidence-based forms of therapy is cognitive-behavioral therapy, and this does focus on the subjective world in emphasising that it is not our experience which lead us to suffer but our beliefs about these experiences.
What I wish to argue is that the inner world is the most central aspect of life, for experiencing and discovering reality. Therefore, it is the most important area to understand and develop, especially in this time, in which for many of us, is one of social distancing. Isolation can be hard but perhaps it is a chance to know oneself. The importance of the reality within is emphasised strongly in the practice of meditation too.What do others think about the finding of the reality within?
The behaviouristist B F Skinner dismissed the role of inner experiences, and for many, discovery is focused on outer exploration. This happens both within questing to find answers about reality and in the sphere of finding meaning and happiness.
However, the importance of the inner world began with Socrates and continued within the psychology of introspection. One of the most evidence-based forms of therapy is cognitive-behavioral therapy, and this does focus on the subjective world in emphasising that it is not our experience which lead us to suffer but our beliefs about these experiences.
What I wish to argue is that the inner world is the most central aspect of life, for experiencing and discovering reality. Therefore, it is the most important area to understand and develop, especially in this time, in which for many of us, is one of social distancing. Isolation can be hard but perhaps it is a chance to know oneself. The importance of the reality within is emphasised strongly in the practice of meditation too.What do others think about the finding of the reality within?
Comments (46)
I agree that the distinction between outer and inner reality is not absolute. Even when we are alone we can perceive the outer reality of our own body. However, the most simple way of thinking about inner reality is about shutting our eyes and being in silence. Of course, even then, we have memories of sensory world. However, I do believe that there is a significant inner world and an example of this would be the realm of dreams and imagination.
The quote I offered was from a modern text but I do believe that the reality of the inner world has existed for all human beings at all times.
Extra: Bearing in mind your question, I have added 'Inner Space' to my title because that is probably how I view inner reality.
If this is the correct interpretation of the concepts of inner and outer lives, what might be of interest to you, what's amazing, is that the outer life, to me, seems to be an inner life affair. We turn our gaze outward only to the extent that it aids us in discovering who we, ourselves, are i.e. we want to, let's just say, enrich and enhance our inner life when we engage with our outer life.
I do agree that the interaction between the outer and inner life is complex,. However, at the same I do believe we have distinct inner lives, even if the inner life is influenced by the outer world. You speak of it the two realms as being a focus of study. I would agree but also see the inner world as a source of fantasy, and I am thinking of the realms of exploration of consciousness which does happen in these dimensions.
I mentioned the way in which we are in bodily existence to @unenlightened and I believe that the way in which we exist as bodies is an important interface for distinguishing between the inner and outer aspects of reality. I have found a relevant quote from a Buddhist writer, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso. He says, 'If we correctly identify and negate the inherently existent body, the body that we normally see, and meditate on the mere absence of such a body with strong concentration, we shall feel our normal body dissolving into emptiness,'
If I start to meditate, or even just sit quietly I can grasp something of this emptiness. Also, when I have tried meditation, although I mostly improvise on various techniques, I do find that sometimes I can begin to voyage into inner space. It seems to me that this dimensions of experience is so different from experience in the external world.
Perhaps the inner is what defines the purpose of an otherwise inherently purposeless outer. Purposeless with the exception of creating purpose for the inner. Or something cliched like that.
Inner life being self-worth, sense of personal identity, values, beliefs, motivation, drive, that sort of thing?
Outer life being how they all interact with the inner lives of others? Or like mentioned discovery and exploration.
Perhaps the inner is the sole commentator on the most important of the five Ws. The only one qualified enough to answer the "why", while the outer answers the remaining four.
Thoughts? Maybe?
:up:
That's a fine piece of philosophical analysis by my standards. You drew a distinction between inner and outer lives and I should've immediately caught on regarding what you meant but I didn't. The inner life and outer life should be like NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria) - there should be nothing or little in common between the two and fantasy and imagination seem to be the right place to start in order to make this distinction of inner and outer lives. After all, our fantasies, our inner lives, usually don't correspond to anything in our outer lives. The two are distinct in this sense. I suppose all of us do create and live part of our existence in fantasy worlds where we have total freedom to do whatever we want. The outer life isn't like that - we have to restrain ourselves, control our impulses, conform to standards, and the like.
Reminds me of solipsism, computer simulation, even god. We play every character, the environment and setting down to every last detail is entirely our choice and we have the power to create and destroy at will in worlds we fantasize about. Such freedom is unavailable in our outer lives.
Shall we call it subjectivity? It is dubious ground you voyage to. One can declare it the source of all meaning and the answer to 'why?' , and another declare it fantasy, solipsism and madness. There seems to be no authority, no settlement to be reached.
Or is it the case, and it is just a suggestion, that what is agreeable, what can be settled, and indubitable, is that exact emptiness, groundlessness, and silence, that is the answer to all the 'whys'? That in the end, whatever might be held to be the content substance and furniture of the inner world is indeed fantasy and nonsense, and as one enters the void, the void enters the world as oneself. And the cessation of thought, and the ending of identification is the emptiness that leaves room for something new, and that is freedom.
Beware though of materialised subjectivities.
I think that fantasy is one of the most central aspects of life. I am talking about daydreaming, but also fantasy as a source for developing ideas and images. I believe in the importance of what Jung described as active imagination. It is a source for the arts and my reference to inner space is based on my interest in science fiction and fantasy writing.
There is much discussion in philosophy about the tension between emotion and reason. However, I see the tension between fact and imagination as just as important. I do not believe that truth is simply about facts, partly because it is possible to build up facts to support our views. I believe that fantasy and imagination are central to thinking.
Perhaps reason and fantasy correspondence with the distinction between right and left brain thinking. In an article called, 'The Laurel and Hardy Theory of Consciousness, ' (1979) Colin Wilson, who drew upon the research of Ornstein, spoke of the left hemispheres as the 'other self.' He spoke of the 'exciting' implications of this, saying, 'the powers of that "other self" are far greater than we realise, and yet that they might nevertheless be accessible to consciousness control.' So, perhaps we need to tap into these powers.
I do believe that philosophy should not be about encouraging reason alone.
I have just said to the Madfool that I do believe that the world of the imagination should not be dismissed by philosophers.
I pointed to the importance of left brain thinking and as I read your post I am thinking how spiritual teachers spoke of the left and right path. The left was seen as fraught with dangers. In particular, the use of drugs for intoxication were forbidden.
However, in philosophy, perhaps we need some left brain thinking, and I am not talking about intoxication. It could be that philosophy has gone too far in right brain reason and that it needs some left brain thinking to restore balance.
I do not wish to go down an Alice in Wonderland philosophy path but I think that the present path of reason is often arriving at antinatalism and nihilism.
In the article I mentioned, Colin Wilson spoke not simply of the left side of the brain, but the integration of the two saying,
'The left-right view of the human entity gives altogether firmer grounds for optimism about man's future. It suggests that our real trouble is not that we are at the mercy of sinister dark forces, but that we are enfeeebled by a completely unjustified lack of self- confidence.'
I do agree that the inner life can enable us to keep hold of a sense of purpose, because it is too easy to get overwhelmed by the path of reason, as it often seems to lead to deadend.
You said you're interested in "...science fiction and fantasy writing" Anyway, have a good day. I'll call it a day.
Yes, I will call it a day as well, but I want imagination in philosophy but I want the fantasy to stay in fantasy and science fiction.
I am not a big fan of Alice in Wonderland and prefer the more futuristic aspects of fantasy and steampunk. I am not trying to be contradictory, but I would say that crossovers of disciplines and genres are exciting territories.
I do not believe there is any real or definable boundary between inner and outer, so the attempt to establish such a distinction would be fruitless. However I do believe that there is a valid distinction to be made in direction, towards the inner, and towards the outer. This would mean that there would be some usefulness in classifying actions this way. But we would need some principles as to what constitutes toward the inner and what constitutes toward the outer. I would think that it would be similar to understanding the flow of time. Some actions go with the flow, and some go against the flow.
You might be interested in Joshs' radical temporality:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9913/introducing-the-philosophy-of-radical-temporality
I think that part of the complicated of understanding how inner and outer levels of experience work together is that while we may perceive others as aspects of outer reality, these others also experiencing their dialogue between inner and outer reality.
I think that the flow between inner and outer can be seen as flowing inwards and outwards. We take in information and generate it in our psyche.
Please note: As I was writing this, I received your link, which you think is relevant. Thanks for this, so I will look at it and reply at a later point.
Thanks for the link and I am sure that the theory is a good framework but what I am interested in is a bit different. I am more interested in the experiential level of understanding in philosophy.I am not saying that theories for understanding the way we understand are irrelevant to this but do believe that we can look within as a source for knowledge and a more direct encounter.
Possibly, my approach is more in line with Eastern approaches to philosophy. I am not trying to say that we should not dialogue with others or understanding the history of philosophy. What I am saying is that the inner dimension, which some might dispute as existing in it's own right, is a source for imagination and connection with a certain kind of engagement with knowledge or self knowledge. But, I am not trying to suggest a withdrawn person struggling alone with the questions of philosophy, but drawing from intuition and imagination, which get forgotten and ignored sometimes.
Well, where else would we find it — we are real, existing within reality, no? immanent and embodied, right? 'closer to you than your own jugular' ... I don't see how indulging in introspection illusions (i.e. navel gazing) gets one any closer to reality ... any more than gulping seawater gets a fish closer to the sea.
I see your introspection illusions link and I do not want to become a navelgazer, or probably, in my case a shoegazer, because I am a bit of indie and psychedelic. I can see the dangers of focusing too much on the inner world. It is not even just about introspection and illusions but even, at its extremes, psychotic delusions.
I am not wishing that we should rely simply on the territory of our own introspection. If anything, I spend a lot of time going into the worlds created by other minds in the books which I read. But probably what I find, is that there is so much theorising, and ,somehow, I feel that we can get lost in the mazes, and lose touch with intuition as a source of wisdom.
I would say that inner space is an important arena for questioning. It can be a frightening world to explore and perhaps we need to touch base with others, as a way for avoiding the wastelands of subjectivity and difficulties we might find in searching for answers.
It is sometimes useful to search for answers within oneself, but also useful to compare with others and see our own exploration within its historical and cultural climate. The searching can be personal but also universal, because each person is confronted by the dilemmas of philosophy in some way.I do not believe that philosophy is a pure academic pursuit but one which draws upon the principles of reason and academic study, but it is also a personal search for meaning and truth.
I wish that I could find or offer easy answers but, unfortunately, it is not that simple and one question often leads to another. But, I am not saying it is all futile, and perhaps the philosophy quest is the most ultimate one in life, and the writings of the philosophers are the testimonies, nothing more and nothing less, and there is no one who can claim that their own inner truth is superior.
Following 180proof, I'd want to say that maybe we should question the assumption that looking inside, inner space, introspection etc... is even a way to get answers to questions about meaning, identity and the like.
Quoting Jack Cummins
I agree with this, you and I are located in a specific place with a specific context for which other peoples thoughts won't necessarily be all that relevant or applicable. For navigating your world your own thoughts and intuitions would typically be more suited, and there is indeed a danger in drowning them in other peoples thoughts when you spent a lot of time with those. But I wouldn't conflate relying more on your own intuitions and instincts with introspection or 'looking inside'. They come to you as you interact with the world, and are geared towards you interacting with that 'external' world... you don't need to go looking for them inside. In fact I think deliberately looking for them via introspection will mostly only fracture them in a self-reflective hall of mirrors.
I think that the danger is probably in looking too hard for answers in the inner world. The process needs to involve a certain amount of spontaneity and reflection on others' points of view. But, personally, I do see some kind of meditation practice as important for bringing my mind to the right state of awareness in order to think with clarity.
The 'inner world" is what happens only if we allow it to happen. Unlike operations that happen with other people, our personal experiences have no avenues of escape. Accepting that isolation is a body of work. A person goes through the trouble of paying attention to what is happening to them as they try to do this or that. It is difficult to speak generally about those kinds of choices.Socrates tried to address this problem.
But there are other ways to look at it. Acquiring skill is not just becoming a better dancer. If what I experience shows me what is happening to other people, then the trick that helps me is connected to other events in a manner I don't understand.
The problems arise when we try to establish a boundary between inner and outer. We say that other people, and all sorts of external objects are definitely outer. So I tend to think that anything outside my body is outer. However, when thinking with the conscious mind as the point of perspective, I start to see my hands and feet, and things like that as outside my mind. And I see them with my eyes and this only tends to confirm that they are outside. Then I start to get inclined toward dualism and see my whole body as outside my conscious mind. Now I have no place to draw the boundary, because I've lost track of where the inner could possibly be, and I need something to validate the very idea of a distinction between inner and outer.
I do agree that it is best if we do not try to establish a clear boundary between inner and outer reality. There have been times when I have looked out at my body and the world and slipped into dualist thinking, as if my mind was detached from my body and the world in general. What made matters worse was reading books on astral projection as this led me to see my mind travelling off in adventures of its own.
My initial idea for creating this thread was that in a discussion on art in another threa I agreed with someone, saying that I did not like the word 'spiritual' any longer. The reason why I said that it is seemed to me that the concept of spiritual is too neat and tidy, as well as too traditional in its connotations. However, having said that I didn't think in terms spiritual, I felt that perhaps I was dismissing a whole dimension of life, inner reality.
I went on to think how this whole aspect of life is so central to life: thinking and reflecting, the arts and sciences and most aspects of life. But I would not suggest that we see it as separate from outer aspects of existence, because I do believe in a holistic approach.
Saying that, my own interest lies in the area in between philosophy and psychology, as conveyed in my interest in the work of Carl Jung and I am also interested in mythology and shamanic views of reality. I believe that these spheres of thought, and symbolic aspects of truth, are often pushed out of philosophy whilst they offer valuable insights as an alternative realm to that of concrete facts derived from the objective, material world. I am not simply trying to find a theory to understand it, but to encourage the philosophers to explore this realm.
course, embodied enactivist approaches to cognition insist that thought is not inside the head. It is a embedded in the body and extended into the world as an interaction.
But another sense of the inner-outer distinction, one that may be more relevant for this discussion, is between exposure to novelty and recycling of already-existing knowledge. We tend to think that in dreaming, with access to ‘outer’ stimulation cut off, all that can happen is a reshuffling of existing concepts in the head.
But, as phenomenology points out, there is no exposure to ‘raw’ external stimuli. The ‘ outer’ comes to us already interpreted , filtered and directed by the ‘inner’. Meanwhile, reflective contemplation, dreaming and imagination is perhaps the richest source of access to truely new worlds.
One is alive in a place where things are happening in real time. The singularity of that event can be modeled in various ways. There is much to be gained through comparing the stories with each other.
But this is our only time under the sun. The inner and the outer better have something to do with each other in my generation because that is all I have got.
I agree that the inner world can enable reflective contemplation, dreaming and imagination, and 'the richest source of access to truly new worlds.'
However, beyond that it our basic form of being and processing.
I am not wishing to underplay relationships with others, but in all aspects of life the inner world is central. We have to internalise the outer experience to process it, in order to connect with others and relate to our surroundings. The inner world is also the source of appreciation, enjoyment and ways of engaging with other beings in a meaningful way.
I have been reading your posts and would say that I am not in any way trying to suggest that we should be or see ourselves as isolated beings. However, I would say that the inner life is the starting point for any connections with other people.
I would argue that if we do not understand ourselves and have a certain amount of inner harmony this will affect our relationships with others. Of course, our own conflicts may stem from damages caused in the outer world, but if nothing else, it is the one area which we can work upon, and we may even seek therapy for help. Of course, reaching out to others and taking part in life is essential, but this does involve one's mindset, which brings back the inner life as a focus point, although bodily wellbeing is part of this too?
Perhaps this implies dualistic thinking? I do advocate a holistic picture of the human being, but the the relationship between physical and mental wellbeing is complex too.
It may be that you or other people don't see that the inner life as central because you have already achieved the basis of a harmonious inner life already, but for others this is not as straightforward.
Do we have an outer experience first and only later internalize it, or is our very access to the ‘outer’ already filtered , directed and thematized by the inner context of understanding we bring to our perceptions of things and people?
To quote Scheler and Wittgenstein:
For we certainly believe ourselves to be directly acquainted with another person's joy in his laughter, with his sorrow and pain in his tears, with his shame in his blushing, with his entreaty in his outstretched hands, with his love in his look of affection, with his rage in the gnashing of his teeth, with his threats in the clenching of his fist, and with the tenor of his thoughts in the sound of his words. If anyone tells me that this is not “perception,” for it cannot be so, in view of the fact that a perception is simply a “complex of physical sensations,” and that there is certainly no sensation of another person's mind nor any stimulus from such a source, I would beg him to turn aside from such questionable theories and address himself to the phenomenological facts. (Scheler 1973, 254 [1954, 260];
We do not see facial contortions and make the inference that he is feeling joy, grief, boredom. We describe a face immediately as sad, radiant, bored, even when we are unable to give any other description of the features. (Wittgenstein 1980)
Is there some other function the inner world serves in your opinion , other and beyond the intending of creative acts of reflective , imagination and dreaming? This is what I meant by outer. Thinking and imagining always intends beyond itself.
I don't think that it is possible to say that inner or outer experience comes first, and this is where the danger of dualism comes in because they are interrelated.
I am not sure what point you are making by your reference Sheler and Wittgenstein approaching others' emotional states on the basis of facial expressions. This aspect of life is the reading of people's emotions on the basis of non verbal signals. I would say that it does show basics of their emotional life but little about the content of the inner life. Surely, inner life cannot be reduced to emotionality alone.
Also, when you say that, 'Thinking and imagining always intends beyond itself,' this seems so vague. I do believe that most people wish to interact with other people, or certain significant others, or the environment, but there are so many possible choices that it could involve numerous aspects arising from the inner life. I would suggest that to understand the individual's inner experience we need to ask the person, in order to get an understanding of the meaning and depth of the actual experience, rather than base our view on observations.
So, when you ask what my understanding of the inner life is beyond reflection, imagination and dreaming are you asking if I am seeing these as separate from interpersonal acts? I see inner life as related to social life, but would not reduce it to this alone. One person could be in positive relationships but feel deeply depressed. Another could be deeply unhappy about relationships but be experiencing a rich inner life depending on their inner resources and imagination. I am not just thinking in terms of day to day pleasure but of creativity. Here, I would say that some of the most recognised people, including Van Gogh, Kierkergaard and Nietzsche, may not have been the most contented social beings but they were able to cultivate the rich inner lives, evident in their creative work.
I was trying to point out that the fashionable hypothesis these days in psychology is that sociality can be seen as more primitive for humankind than individuality. In other words, it is possible to conceive the relationship between two or more persons not in terms of "interacting" individuals, but of elements of an inseparable system in which the relationship precedes the individual psychologies.
I think you may have put your comment together a bit wrongly because you have quoted me as saying a whole paragraph I did not say. I would imagine that the second paragraph is your answer, but it is rather unclear to me, as it could be a quote from someone else. Please could you clarify this.
It seems a bit simplistic to say that, 'the outer provides, the inner digests' because we are not just passive observers.
However, I would agree that it is easy for us to slip into the observer world, viewing the media, and this leading to a more interior perspective It says a lot about our culture, for better or worse. I am sure that many other cultures did not have the luxury of being able to indulge in the inner life like we can, but this could change if many people become much poorer.
I am not convinced that many people in the past or in certain parts of the world have been able to focus on the inner life in the way that we can, on our phones, reading and listening to music. So, the big question would be what will happen if we have to adapt to a much harsher existence if consumer materialist culture diminishes in the near future? Would 'the inner life' offer a means of sustenance or would most of us just lack survival skills, become unwell mentally, or find new ways of negotiating the boundaries between inner and outer?
I was trying to point out that the fashionable hypothesis these days in psychology is that sociality can be seen as more primitive for humankind than individuality. In other words, it is possible to conceive the relationship between two or more persons not in terms of "interacting" individuals, but of elements of an inseparable system in which the relationship precedes the individual psychologies.
I have seen your reply.
The one thing that I will say I is that I have studied many aspects of psychology but don't just go by popular psychology, which you refer to. I prefer to look to psychology in its diversity, ranging from psychoanalytic, cognitive and humanistic. The way the psychosocial is viewed varies so much depending on the perspective. I have to admit that I have more of an interest in the psychoanalytic, which might explain my emphasis on the inner world, but I try to keep aware of what can be learned from other perspectives too.
It argues the internal process generating meaning operates in the background implicitly, and can be referred to directly in order to think creatively.
I haven't come across Eugene Gendlin, but I will look him up. Thanks
My responses have not conveyed my intentions very well. Please pardon my penchant for aphoristic observations. I will try a different approach.
I am in full agreement with your thought that what you practice by yourself is closely involved with what may become possible for you and others around you. Disciplines are very personal in that way. The isolation I mentioned before was meant to praise a certain freedom from distraction to pay attention, to notice changes from different attempts at an event, to listen while doing things. In the texts of Zhaungzi, the butcher describing why he is so good at his craft tries to convey some of that connection as a process. On the other hand, the observation is made in the midst of a large argument about what separates maps from the territory. The Taoists opposed the certainty of the Confucians on many levels but also had enough irony to notice when they themselves were doing what they opposed. The privacy of some practices can be acted upon under conditions one does not fully understand. Or even barely at all.
So models serve different purposes. What lets me be open to something that is given if I accept it is not easily comparable to models that serve other purposes. On the other hand, the two kinds of talk must be connected in some way for it to actually bring a new condition into one's life.
Your latest response was good to read, because reading through most of the responses to my question it has appeared that the inner life is being dismissed as being of any importance at all.
It is seen more as something to be avoided altogether. It is as if we only matter as social creatures according to most of people who have looked into this thread. However, even if we are completely immersed in social life and try to avoid 'inner life' as a luxury as far as I can see we are still have an inner self, although the self can be understood as a construct and has fluidity.
I did look up Eugene Gendlin online and his ideas do seem useful, so thanks for introducing him to me. His book, 'Focusing' sounds worth reading and I will try to find it and read it. However, the whole concept of focusing seems important, because my whole emphasis on the inner world is really about the way it is a focus point for all that happens in our lives. Focus is central to interpretation and intentionality.
'The kingdom of Heaven is within you.' It's an old and beautiful thought. I think of stoics, skeptics, Christians, and so on. Call it escapist or profound. It's a tempting idea.
But for me knowing oneself is dialectical. Maybe I have conversations with myself. But don't I have better conversations with myself having read some good books? Having been impacted by charismatic otherness?
The solitary self doesn't seem that interesting. A child only becomes a self proper by living in a world with others. And what do humans want? To love, to be admired, and so on. Certain thinkers come to mind who weren't understood in their day...but they looked forward in their imagination to when they would be cherished.
I still like the idea of spending a month in a mountain cabin alone if I knew that my loved ones would be happy and safe in my absence. (And I'd probably worry about being creatively productive or having something to show for the time nevertheless.)
Yes, I would agree with the idea that an entirely solitary life would be too extreme. While I moan that I have difficulty getting enough private time and space, if I was cut off from others entirely I would struggle. When alone, the thought of significant others is very important. If I think about times when I have enjoyed time alone it has been in the context of knowing that I had important connections with other human beings. I don't think I could become a hermit, living out in the mountains alone. So, the ideal of a rich inner life is probably best seen as balanced with connections and relationships with others, and reading books written by others too.