Tuesday, July 8, 2014

Answering the question

2/18/12
ANOTHER ATTEMPT  to explain life, the universe, and everything:
the philosophy of science, the right and wrong of religion, and the price of bread. A work in progress.


The famous tennis player Billie Jean King was once asked after an amazing display of competitive prowess, what it felt like to utterly destroy her competition. Her answer reflected nothing of the awareness of competition. “It felt great. I just got everything that was in me, out.” 

What is in us. What are we. How are we to solve the problems we face. What about suffering. What, am I?

Science and religions provide answers or partial answers to these questions, yet we are forced to ask, if the answers are satisfactory, why would they not be universally recognized as such by everyone, ending the conflicts we see that arise between opposing views.

Regardless that we share the same planet at the same moment in time, different points of view on our existence persist. The easy philosophical answer to this conundrum, we all tend to employ to a greater or lesser extent, is to suppose that our particular point of view is the correct one; those in conflict with it are, by definition,  inaccurate, incorrect, wrong. While this provides individual solace, it does little to equip us to live together in harmony. In fact, quite the opposite. We have (at times at least) trouble recognizing others’ views as valid, because only ours we have lived.

Scientists attempt to avoid subjective confusion, and claim objectivity by relying on an interpretation of reality firmly rooted in observation. Hypotheticals must be verified through analysis, through the process of experimentation.

This is great as far as it goes, but when relied upon exclusively this approach trends to compartmentalized thinking, leaveing our understanding unresponsive to the multiple influences on a component acting in a vast complex system. The approach does not prove satisfactory in all situations at all times, and falls short as a guide to the experience of the totality of life.  For example: 1) write the formula for how to tell your wife you forgot her birthday, again; or, 2) see how far you get in the Sahara desert with the formula for water (H2O)  rather than a full canteen. At a certain point our symbolic language fails, reality takes over. The human condition equals the continuous experience of reality, not our continuous contemplation of its symbolic interpretations.

Religions attempt to explain the human situation with symbolic language that defines existence into codes of proper conduct: Life is suffering, but if you do it right you go to heaven instead of hell after you die (Christianity, Judaism, Islam); or, life is suffering, but if you agree to go through the whole thing without ever completely enjoying it, you won’t have to go through it again (Buddhism, Hinduism); or, live your life so as not to piss off your ancestors, because they’re watching and they’ll get even (Confucianism). Such fear based approaches created to deal with tribal superstitions are unsuccessful formulas for finding full enjoyment of the reality in which we find ourselves, for enduring happiness.

Then there are the political ideologies for social organization. We seem obliged to subscribe to at least one, or by dint of necessity to mix and match:

Capitalism: Self interest and mutual interest in the larger sense are synonymous: greed is good, it makes the world go round. Go get rich, it’s what you’re meant to do. Therefore, the more you have the better you are. Since it’s what you’re meant to do, it doesn’t matter what or who or how many you have to step on in the process. Don’t worry about pissing them off; the more successful you are, the more you can leverage that success into the power to protect you from the envious and morally corrupt (anybody with less, obviously), and start a charity as a tax write-off to salve your conscience.

Marxism: When the proletariate succeeds in making the bourgeoisie disappear by killing them or frightening them into yielding their privileged position, life will naturally resolve into paradise, organized by the central committee, who will assure everyone an equal share.

Democracy: The majority may not always be right, but since they’re the majority, you can’t say no. Well, you can say no, but it wouldn’t make any difference, and you might end up in jail.

Socialism: Life works best when government works to assure the welfare of its citizens.
a) If I’m poor I think this applies to everyone like me.
b) If I’m rich “      “       “       “        “        “    “   “ .

Despotism: Just do what I say and don’t ask why.

Our values are derived by interaction with our immediate culture, awash in these and other symbolic interpretations. Hence we find ourselves most sympathetic to the needs and beliefs of our immediate family, then to our circle of friends and what we loosely define as our tribe (professional relationships, class, ethnicity, religion, nationality, etc.); even while being aware that people everywhere are pretty much the same, or potentially so. Those who would deny this are the closeted or un-closeted bigots and boors; most extended families can lay claim to at least one.

So what are we, anyway. This is not what Billie Jean King was talking about. What is it in us that demands to be let out, seeks expression through what we do.

To review:

Science says, knowledge can be derived from observing natural phenomena that act in predictable, repeatable ways. From such observation we derive its laws. The human then resolves to be a complex programmable biological machine.

Religion says, this doctrine is my truth, live your life by it and you will be rewarded in the hereafter or avoid rebirth to a life of suffering; fail to live by it and you will be punished (in fact, if I feel threatened enough by your example I may not wait for God to do it but will have to punish you myself).

The shaman/mystic, on the other hand, says, to know the truth of the world you must first experience it within you.

Within the realm of the shaman/mystic there are observable laws. If I approach the infinite with a question, the answer I am open to receiving is limited by the nature of my question. Hence flashes of “inspiration”1 come to the scientist and the religious, and they find there answers in the symbolic pattern respective of the manner the question was posed. The answer to the question of “who am I?,” when asked with sufficient humility, can call forth a deeper questioning, and a deeper answer. This is due not to morality, but rather its own sort of physics, which is sometimes described by its lack.
For example, if you hold your cup above the tap, the water may flow, but never into your cup. Or: A student approaches a teacher intent on asking a question that will display how much he already knows.
    “Would you care for some tea?” the teacher responds. The student assents. While the student continues his explanation/question, the teacher fills his cup to overflowing, causing hot tea to splash out and burn the student’s hand.
    “Stop! What are you doing, my cup is already full?!” exclaims the student.
    “Yes, and similarly, when you come full of your own ideas, how do you expect me to add anything?” 

We cannot fit a Lincoln Continental into the trunk of a Fiat, yet this is what we attempt to do when we approach the infinite with our mind, and attempt to define it. The result is passionless science masquerading as reality, and despotic spiritual doctrine, masquerading as truth.

While our mind excels at interacting with the limited realm revealed by our five physical senses in order to preserve our body, it is less capable of perceiving connections to each other and the world beyond our senses, which also exist. Which is not to say that they cannot be experienced. In fact, we are experiencing them all the time. It is the recognition of the experience of connection that we lack. Descartes’ famous “I think, therefore I am,” resolves to “I think, therefore I do not experience all of my self; I only experience my thoughts.”

To develop the sense to consistently experience our connection and explore into that interior space which is likewise infinite; this is within human capacity. For recognition to occur, for the reality to take the place of the symbol, we must practice emptying ourselves of the continual conversation with limited symbolic representations of reality; our thoughts. The answer to the question “who am I” requires a complete emptying of our concepts, not for moral reasons or because faith is required, but because the answer is too large to fit them; larger than anything we can conceive. Our favorite tool for perceiving the world, our mind, proves mostly an impediment in this regard.

As our mind attempts to incorporate all new experience into symbolic language, distortion is inevitable. Hence it is incumbent to have our experience of reality be current, fresh. Our mind shall, for as long as we draw breath, likely concern itself with turning our experience of the unlimited into the disposable, but we do not always have to pay attention to that process, and our perception may be clearer when we avoid it.

           Charles Fredricks

 When the doors of perception are cleansed, man will see things as they truly are, infinite.
    — William Blake (1757 - 1827)


   


No comments: