Only what I call the “perfectly relaxed consciousness” is free from nervous tension, and in this frame of mind “thought” as we normally understand it is not possible. Countless times, when prosecuting, I have put myself into the shoes of an accused to try to see how things looked through his eyes, and very interesting it is; but you cannot work out your cross-examination in this way. To do that requires thought; and that means an attitude of mind under tension.
Within any frame of mind under tension, it is possible to think a large number of thoughts; but it is not possible to think thoughts that belong to another frame of mind. It is possible in two frames of mind to think thoughts about the same subject matter; but they will not be the same thoughts, because they take place in different frames of mind. They may appear to be the same, because they are about the same subject matter; and very often the thoughts in one frame of mind will contradict the thoughts on the same subject matter in a different frame of mind, and an argument ensues. But what the disputants are really arguing about is the relative merits of their respective frames of mind, although they may think they are arguing about the merits of the subject matter. It is seldom that they are truly arguing about the relative validity of the thoughts viewed in the same frame of mind.
The assumptions, on which any attitude of mind is based, are very much like the a priori facts on which Kant based his Critique of Pure Reason; and these were the instinctive knowledge of space and time which Kant felt we all had. And Kant elaborated in great detail how he believed these assumptions were valid, and how his Critique was based on them. Unfortunately Kant lived before 19th and 20th century scientific research, which showed almost conclusively that our ideas of space and time are not intuitive, but are born of experience, like almost everything else! So his philosophy is flawed from the start; as indeed are so many attitudes of mind flawed. But my theory of consciousness accepts that these assumptions may be flawed, with the result that the working out of conclusions in that frame of mind may also be flawed to some extent; whereas Kant’s Critique was based, and avowedly based, on the validity of the assumptions which he made, in retrospect somewhat unwisely. For practical purposes Kant’s idea of space was Euclid’s three dimensional space, and it is true that this is most people’s idea of space. And furthermore it has to be admitted that the system of geometry that Euclid built on his axioms is the most marvellous system; and the most controversial of his axioms is simply that two parallel lines meet at infinity, which some people might say was obvious. But “infinity” is a very elusive concept, and the more one thinks about it, the less obvious it is. Nevertheless this concept of space is quite satisfactory for many everyday affairs. It is not satisfactory however for spherical geometry, and its conclusions are invalid there; for example in spherical geometry the angles of a triangle do not add up to 180 degrees. Now aerial-navigation depends of spherical geometry; and it would be a pity in these days of popular travel by air, if most airliners got lost, and crashed through lack of fuel, because their navigation was confined to the propositions of three dimensional space. So Kant’s philosophy may still be valid in the humdrum life round Konigsberg; but its conclusions are likely to be flawed if applied to a wider environment. Logic or reason is no magic talisman, and is only a tool for working out in any given attitude of mind what conclusions are sound, if certain given premises are sound.
The same objection applies to Kant intuitive idea of time. With the discovery that light has a limited, but absolute velocity, any idea of simultaneous events, when those events are far apart, vanishes. For when you have to admit that two events may appear in the order A-B to an observer on one side of them, and in the order B-A to an observer on the other side of them, because light takes time to travel, most people would say that any idea of simultaneity vanished. And as between our galaxy, the Milky Way, and the furthest galaxy we know, who can say whether they are receding from us with a velocity approaching that of light, or whether we are receding from them.