Matter As Categorization of Being

by Jay (Lather. Rinse. Repeat.)

Date: Fri, 05 Jul 1996 14:12:19 -0700 (MST)

Categorization shall be defined as the process by which an observer assigns an "identity" to a generally continuous range of potentially acceptable values within a continuum of values. By "identity" it is meant that the perceiver has perceived the category in such a way that it may be compared to other categories or identities for the purpose of deciding whether the new category is similar enough to the first to be considered an instance of it. An identity may consist of a linguistic label or a non-linguistic symbol or concept.

As for "range of values", consider that a category such as "yellow" may be thought of as a range of potentially acceptable values between "red" and "orange" on the continuum of the prismatic spectrum. To give another example, "computer monitor" may be considered a range of potentially acceptable values on several possible continuums: for instance, a continuum of "electronic devices for the displaying of information", with, say, digital LCD displays on one end and televisions on the opposite end.

The process of categorization is therefore one of abstraction; it follows then that the most direct -- or the least abstracted -- apprehension of reality would occur when the least amount of categorization has occured.

It is extremely significant that the greatest degree of categorization occurs with perceptions that are considered by the perceiver to be external or remote to the sense of self. As evidence, consider that there are far fewer words to describe subjective emotional states than there are to identify "objective" physical objects.

Another way to state this is to say that as abstraction decreases, there is an increasing tendency for perception being -- defined here as that essence to which the perception occurs -- to be inextricably linked. For instance, we usually consider that physical objects are not a part of our being, whereas we are very likely to introduce internal emotional states with self-identification: "I am happy", for instance.

This phenomenon is nowhere better illustrated that in the realm of mystical and transcendent experience. The mystic often reports becoming "one" with God or the universe; in some Christian traditions, the priest when acting as such is considered not so much an individual human being but rather an impersonal vehicle of the essence and communication of God. That mystical thought also tends toward advocating focusing on "pure being" as opposed to semantic understanding or abstract perception is likely no coincidence.

While we have touched on the nature of being and perception and their interactions with on another, we have not discussed the nature of the perceived. Considering first the lowest level of abstraction, what is the nature of the reality perceived? Most readers of serious mystical literature will recognize that direct apprehension of reality, as we are herein defining it, cannot be described save through metaphor. Thus we find references to "God, the "Universe", the "Self", a "Cosmic Consciousness", the "Absolute", the "Void", the "Tao", the "Mind" or numerous other analogies and metaphors which usually, according to the mystics, fall tragically short of communicating the nature of the direct perception. The reason for this may be that language is invented and equipped to deal primarily with the highest levels of abstraction. For evidence, it is again suggested that we compare the number of words invented to describe physical objects with the number of words invented to describe inner realities: indeed, it seems that a direct correlation can be made with language's ability to adequately describe reality with the degree of categorization involved. Thus it seems perfectly logical that the direct, non-abstracted perception of reality would be difficult, if not utterly impossible, to describe in linguistic terms.

But what of those attempts at metaphor? Accounts may be grouped into two very generalized categories: those which use a metaphor of a spiritual being or entity containing all being and realities within it -- God or Krishna, for example -- and those which use the metaphor of some form of emptiness of void. Of the latter category, many such instances are understood explicitly or implicitly to refer to a _creative_ void, pregnant with potential to manifest the whole of creation. Regardless, it seems clear that either in potential or manifest form, the direct perception of reality is the perception of the whole of existence.

The unity of perception and being during this experience must not be forgotten. The mystic "transcends" the individual self to become the object of perception. The hypothesis being asserted is that at the core of the self is a non-individualized component which is identical to the whole of creation.

There are two ways of interpreting such a conclusion. The first is that the hypothesis is to be taken quite literally: the core and the source of the individual self is not really an individual self at all, but the whole universe, of which the individual self is but a single yet inextricably connected facet. In this view, the answer to the oft-asked question in eastern philosophy of who, ultimately, is the perceiver or "Mind" is answered as the universe itself. In the second interpretation, we may consider that the mystic, at the heart of his individual being, perceives the vast and seemingly infinite network of increasingly complex categorizations and abstractions which define his conceptions of his interior and exterior universe.

In either view, we should realize that the object of perception _is_ the being to which the perception occurs (a statement which could have easily been intuited from the idea of union of being and perception). Recalling that categorization is the abstraction of that perception, we are forced to the conclusion that the only "reality" ever perceived is that of our own being (or extremely complex categorizations of it, as in the case of our perception of physical reality).