Introduction

How do we see the "world that surrounds us and ourselves within it" and why do we see it the way we do? are two, probably the most important questions humanity is faced with, for everything we know and everything we do is based on answers to these questions.

Current - more or less generally accepted answers (mostly behavioural) are increasingly at odds with numerous scientific findings. What makes the situation even worse, are contradictory interpretations of these findings that - more often than not - raise more questions than offering an answer.

It seems that the "objective" approach to these questions has reached insurmountable obstacles and that the introduction of the "subjective" approach is inevitable. We cannot continue to deny the enormity of the discrepancies between our "subjective" experiences and "objective" findings.

On this site - I'm trying to develop a coherent "subjective" picture of how we see the "world that surrounds us and ourselves within it" that is (partially) reconciled with "objective" findings. The introspective method that I am using is relatively simple although hard to explain - except to say that it is a kind of self-analysis. For example: We all know that any "objective" picture must have been a "subjective" picture (or a number of "subjective" pictures) before it became "objective". But how we "derive" one from another is not so clear and a kind of self-analysis is the only option. The answer I reached (see Consciousness) is not the only answer, but I do hope that it does lead to a better understanding of both.

This coherent "subjective" picture requires explorations of all areas of human experience, thought and action - and this is an immense task - too vast for a single person and a small web site. My only hope is that the approach I'm taking is sufficiently appropriate and up to now it seems to be the case and a relatively coherent picture emerges from putting together numerous neurological and psychological findings with our knowledge of language, culture, art...

The concept of the probabilistic /deterministic universe is based on the concept of a closed (finite) system and therefore entirely inappropriate in considerations of an open (infinite) system.

A difficulty I face, in better explaining this "subjective" approach, is in the currently prevailing "objective" picture of the probabilistic / deterministic universe (closed, finite system). From the "subjective" perspective "we" are unique and as such - "impossible" (probability 1/∞) in any of the "objective" pictures we may form through a mental change of perspective. I would suggest that a "subjective" approach requires a picture of an open universe - a universe I would call opportunistic - a universe that is based on opportunities or openings rather than on random chance or fate. (Such picture of a universe seems to be also much better suited to the hotly debated phenomenon called emergence.)

A possible alternative to the prevailing picture of the probabilistic/deterministic universe is outlined at Cause & Effect page (revised on 8 June 2003) under Perception.

I would also suggest that radical changes are required not only in our ways of thinking but also in logic and math. The classical (static) logic and math cannot cope with emergence, uniqueness and selfreference for example. (The reason seems to be our closed picture of the probabilistic/deterministic universe.) The math in the "subjective" opportunistic universe seems to be much closer to 1 + 1 = e than to 1 + 1 = 2. Similarly, the logic seems to be rather "loose", tentative like proposed variant of nonmonotonic logic (see Model) - where we have a limited choice in determining what is "true", "false" or "neutral", than static N = p + q.

As new findings catch my attention and as I learn about some old ones, I am trying to incorporate them or adjust my approach. However, the core concepts remained intact in these three years of the life of this website - and as time passes by my confidence in edging towards workable answers - increases. Currently, I am working on an area of human experiences - stage acting. It might be surprising to many but this appears to be a goldmine for those in search of answers - Stanislavski's psychophysical theory of acting in particular. For an actor or an actress, their bodies, emotions, memories, thoughts, other actors or actresses, the stage as they see it ... - in short all of their being and surroundings is an "instrument" they learn to "play". Their approach is per definition - "subjective" and I hope to have a few pages dedicated to their findings in near future - particularly in relation to emotionally charged memories.

I'm well aware however, that this "subjective" approach I'm suggesting, requires a subtle "change of perspective" with far reaching consequences. I experienced it more than a quarter of a century ago as a shiver that made everything looking different and yet the same. This left me "stranded" for quite a while until I started to get to terms with the change.

The simple statistics of visits to some of these pages reflect well difficulties many visitors might have. This might be partially a result of my inability to express myself well, but I suspect it is far more a result of difficulties in achieving the required "perceptual shift" (or "paradigm shift" as some would call it). It is like a "book not meant to be read by me at this stage of my life". Practically everything within us raises their voices to stop us going any further. And wisely so, for we need to be ready for the change - my apparent non-readiness or half-readiness did let me stranded for quite a while. However, if you do experience such a change - I do hope that these pages will also help you to come to terms with it more quickly than I did.