Self-examination and reality
Self-examination has sometimes been referred to as introspection, which means conscious observation of one’s own thoughts. However, this term has since been abandoned because research based on a personal perspective has been considered unreliable. The study of human psychology is based on objective third-person observation. The difference in psychological research is that it uses objective research methods based on the same methods, whereas with self-examination, it is impossible to be sure whether everyone does it in the same way or how each individual observes their life or existence (Lehtovaara, 1962, pp. 11–12).
While living and working in Helsinki, I attended a few lectures by Ilmo Häkkinen on self-examination and self-development. Häkkinen exuded peace, and his way of talking about humanity and self-development was very consistent and down-to-earth. According to Häkkinen, self-examination is a thorough exploration of one’s own personality, including experiences and behavior patterns. This leads to clearer choices, more meaningful interactions, and the practice of life skills (Häkkinen, 2018, p. 6).
My reality is also largely shaped by how I think and feel. When the way I think changes, my attitude towards reality also changes. However, reality is only made up of fragments of thoughts, experiences, and memories. It is possible, however, to arrange these into a coherent surface through which to view the world. A broken mirror never tells the truth…
…Self-examination aims at consistency and building thoughts on the basis of facts. Facts are a strong foundation, while opinions and inconsistent assumptions colored by feelings are destabilizing factors. Nothing built on inconsistency can last.
Events and things in life are manifested through the transmission of information. Information can be, for example, a word, a sound, or a feeling. Everything is information about something that we receive. As individuals, we react to this information according to how our thinking is structured.
There are also unchanging events and things that are based on existing rules in reality. In this case, the information about these events and things is unchanging in observable reality. A good example of this is perspective, which is based on geometry. There are, of course, other examples. The unchanging rules of our creation, for example, in biology and geography…
…Everyone can, of course, create their own reality as they see fit, but building a strong foundation for one’s thinking and reality requires structures that are as realistic and fact-based as possible. If the mind and thoughts are not integrated with reality, life becomes contradictory and inconsistent. This, in turn, makes life uncomfortable before long. Individuals are responsible for themselves and their choices regarding information. It is also important where the information comes from. For this reason, it is important to be very critical of the information you receive.
The starting point for self-examination is self-awareness, which also guides us to examine the world around us. Who is this ”I” anyway, what do I like, and what kinds of events and things affect me? When you are aware of yourself and your ability to influence your thoughts, you also begin to critically examine what kind of information you want to be offered, whether the information is useful, and how the information fits in with your personal way of thinking.
Cube; Theory of dimensions
When reflecting on life and the nature of reality, I have always found it easy to visualize things in my mind. Whereas in the ideology that life is circular, the circle and the circumference represent the course of life, the process of learning, and continuity, the cube represents reality and the space where events and things happen. The cube simultaneously represents the boundaries of three-dimensional reality, the mind and its frameworks, as well as the self and consciousness.
If I think of myself as an individual receiving information, then some kind of information about something has constructed this problem in my mind. The information has been conveyed to me through the third dimension, because I live and interact in this same dimension. The mind and thought, on the other hand, operate in the fourth dimension, which is directly affected by this information. Information thus moves from the third dimension to the fourth dimension, but may return to the third, depending on how I react to this information…
…The fifth dimension, self-awareness and higher consciousness, interacts only with the third dimension (Miettinen, 2024).
Ancient thinkers have had a very diverse and profound influence on modern Western science and philosophy. One well-known Greek philosopher describes reality as follows: reality is not the same thing as the world we perceive with our senses. The senses are therefore not considered a reliable source of information about reality. Professor K.V. Laurikainen provides an excellent example of this in his book Todellisuus ja elämä (Reality and Life, 1980). He writes his text on a wooden, brown, compacted birch table. Under a microscope, the surface of the table would look different, not to mention more powerful observation devices, which would show the table to be completely different. The table consists only of atoms, their nuclei, and the electron cloud surrounding them. This turns out to be largely empty space, because the mass is concentrated almost entirely in the nuclei, which are a very small part of the diameter of the atom itself. Upon closer inspection, the appearance of the table does not correspond to what the table really is. Observable properties such as color or strength are the result of the structure of the electron cloud and the bonds between different atoms in the electron clouds. We can feel these bonds in our hands when we touch the structure of matter. (Laurikainen, 1980, pp. 23, 24.)
Two and a half thousand years ago, Greek philosophers already knew that we cannot grasp ”reality” with our senses. Finding ”what is true” and what the characteristics of ”what is true” are became a central question in their thinking. Their thinking ended up at the same point as how reality is still thought of today: reality is unchanging and manifests itself in the same way, i.e., it is invariant. Changes were seen as belonging to the world of perception, not to the true reality behind it, because perceptions were considered unreliable. Most of them believed that the real world ( ) is one and unchanging. Today, these changes can also be accepted, because even in these changes there are invariants, laws that define the changes. These laws are called the laws of nature. According to the atomists, reality was made up of unchanging and complete atoms that were indivisible and moved in a vacuum. According to them, only the movement of atoms was real. Objects and substances perceived by the senses did not belong to reality, only the atoms of which they were composed. Plato’s idea of reality is very clear. Plato’s reality meant the world of ideas. In his world of ideas, these ideas were perfect, like geometric shapes, which appeared imperfect in the world of perception. According to Plato, it is only through logical thinking, rather than the world of perception, that it is possible to reach the real world. (Laurikainen, 1980, pp. 24-27.)
The changes in today’s reality can be explained largely by Newtonian mechanics, which, from its inception, was able to control and predict the movements and trajectories of objects. These could be verified through various experiments and predictions, which also corresponded accurately with observation. In its time, mechanics was convincing because of its unusual invariance: the most diverse phenomena of motion could be explained through a few basic laws. Nature became a simple order. (Laurikainen, 1980, pp. 32, 33) In our everyday lives, the movements of objects still follow classical mechanics, which can be verified mathematically and geometrically. Visually observable phenomena are based on theories of perspective.
In psychology, an individual’s world is divided into the external and internal worlds. All events and things outside the individual belong to the external world, while the internal world consists of representations of the external world and the self, as well as the emotions associated with them. An individual’s internal world is thus formed from their subjective experiences. An individual’s unconscious processes also belong to the internal world (Himberg et al., 1995).