Hyponoetics - Essays
 
Spheres of Thought
Abstract: The act of thinking produces different views or spheres of thought. These spheres may be convergent or divergent with each other, but they always can be integrated within a broader or more holistic sphere that comprises formerly antagonistic views. All the relative spheres may be finally embraced within the absolute sphere of fundamental unity.
Download

Every human being involved in the act of thinking creates noetic spheres of thought. Within a certain sphere, the views or theories are true, as long as they stick to logical consistency. If we take for example two contradictory views, such as materialism and idealism, we cannot declare one to be true and the other to be false, because, inside their noetic spheres, both views are true. The views of a materialistic thinker are true within the noetic spheres he created by her thought, and the views of the idealistic thinker are as well true, as long as they are considered in her noetic sphere.

The problem crops up as soon as we try to compare both these views or try to link them philosophically or historically. A relationship established between these sovereign spheres must take place within a wider sphere, comprising both views, although this time, we could claim one view to be true and the other to be false. It is even necessary to differentiate between contradictory views according to logical rules and principles. These logical principles are only valid if we comprise other views in our view . For we do not understand these other views as they are in themselves, but as we interpret them in relationship to each other. This comparison and relation happens in a newly created noetic sphere. This third view could again become a thetic or elemental view within another noetic sphere, and so on, ad infinitum.

Two spheres could even overlap, so as to share common elements with each other. This could be seen for example in Schopenhauer's philosophy, who takes over certain basic elements of his predecessor, Kant's philosophy. Conversely, we could unite two formerly antagonistic views in a higher synthetic sphere, by sublating (in Hegel's terms) both views in a higher synthesis.

If we encounter a logical inconsistency within a noetic sphere, this could be traced back to a logical fallacy within this sphere itself. This does not make the whole view untrue. This fallacy could be explained in terms of the philosophical or mental development through which a thinker evolves from her early youth to full maturity. On the other hand, if we discover a real logical inconsistency within the system of thought she proposes, then part of it must be doubted or critically rethought, so as to eliminate the fallacy. If this is not possible, the sphere must either be extended to adopt new elements or completely rejected in order to a create a new noetic sphere. If the fallacy has occurred because of factual ignorance, then we could not term this sphere to be untrue. At the moment of creating this noetic sphere, the thinker was unaware of certain facts, and therefore she cannot be blamed for these erroneous statements, because the created sphere depends on the actual knowledge.

If we extend the knowledge by revising our views, we also extend the noetic sphere. Both views, the former and the extended one, are true in themselves. If, for the sake of hermeneutic understanding or historical reasons, we do a comparative study of both views and relate them to each other in order to elucidate the developmental phases of the philosopher, we are not moving within one of these views but are outside of them, in a new noetic sphere, connecting all these views together. Only by transcending particular spheres are we able to get a more holistic understanding of the movement of thought in time.

Therefore, all particular views are relative noetic spheres. They are related to a certain thinker at a certain place and time in history, under certain circumstances and certain influences. The question is: is there an absolute sphere? This absolute sphere must unite all relative spheres, it is the unity of being and thinking, the unity of the world, the oneness of all phenomena.

The relative spheres manifest the plurality of the world and its relativism. The absolute sphere is the basic unity of the world, the pure metaphysical principle of oneness. This absolute sphere is infinite, and not defined by boundaries as the relative spheres. As all particularity is suspended in the absolute sphere, the question remains whether it be possible for our mind ever to reach that absolute sphere.