Each and every one of us is a conscious being, who over a life span has access to nothing other than a local segment of total reality. So, what we commonly consider the real world is no more than some incommensurable fraction of the real real world.
This local fraction, however, adds up to a rich flow of sensory data which may be interpreted in an infinite number of ways. An unlimited number of primary assumptions may be attributed to it, and its various aspects are being acknowledged selectively.
Even its most contrary grasps, based on mutually exclusive assumptions, are equivalent in the end, because their underlying foundations cannot not be reached and confirmed.
Regardless of whether or not a given approach may be confirmed within the range of human perception, its ultimate foundation and its final reign are well beyond the scope of human knowledge. Thus, in the objective sense, all theoretical assumptions remain equally unverifiable, and therefore equal.
Nevertheless, our assumptions as to the broadest realm of existence, intrinsically determine our overall mentality. Given their origin in history, we are subject to certain implicit tendencies, which define our culturally different visions of reality, our different values, attitudes, and beliefs.
As far as the culturally prevailing assumptions, the longer a given axiom stays in effect, the more we become attached to it, and the more adamantly we reject its alternatives. Any established model tends to be reinforced over time, because collectively accepted standards enhance our ability to communicate and to interact socially, thus confirming our set of assumptions as the ‘one and only real truth’.
Even though we hold on to arbitrary ideas, we soon insist that ‘this way is the only way’. This is understandable, because any category established as a ruling principle helps us to acquire habits over time, thus automating and simplifying our lifestyle.
Unfortunately, we tend to forget that the established categories are purely coincidental, and that by strengthening our habits we actually negate the entire spectrum of many different approaches. Thus, we ignore the fact that countless alternatives are potentially capable of radically improving our state of being.
This is why a slave, who was born and raised in the state of bondage, may be trying to improve his servile condition, but is not likely to recognize options of true freedom and independence. All social conventions tend to be similarly restricted: cultural, religious, philosophical, ideological, political, as well as ordinary types of behavior and common ways of thinking. Regrettably, this is how our mental inertia tends to take revenge upon us.
Science came into being in the same manner. Under the pretext of ‘enlightenment’ the materialistic approach was driven into our mentality as a modern religion.
Science amounts to formalization of the local realm within our reach. It is a precise, standardized description of observable correlations, present within the empirically accessible segment of reality. It leads to inventions, development of technologies, productivity and practical solutions.
Over time, science becomes more advanced. It covers broader areas, while delving more deeply into minute details. Scientific methods and terminology grow and become more complex.
Presently, science is so extensive and widespread that no human being is capable of absorbing it fully. The most advanced scientists are specialists focusing only on its particular areas, given very specific, practical purposes.
But the masses tend to view it idealistically from a distance. This is why the idea of science becomes a popular myth for the public. The great majority of current populations blindly admire science as an ultimate knowledge.
They see scientific theories as complete and exclusive truths, impeding in this manner their recognition of the broadest realm unknown as being all-inclusive and potentially infinite.
They tend to think of scientists as unquestionable experts in all things. They fail to realize that there are much broader and more essential realms, which science simply does not address.
Yes, it is possible to reason according to the theories associated with science, which negate human beings as self-conscious subjects. Focusing on materialism as the so called ‘objective truth’, makes us forget that all data appears only through human perception, being no more than its inner content.
Materialism is just one of many possible theoretical approaches, although it tends to diminish humanity. The average people accept it as the supreme truth, however. As a result, they easily absorb antihuman doctrines, dictated by ‘scientific experts’ standing by as the all-knowing gurus.
On the other hand, truly enlightened people understand well that the local ‘objective truths’ are conditioned by much broader factors, far beyond access of science or human knowledge. This is why they consider them relative instead of ultimately valid. As a result, they do not allow their local conditions to predetermine their relationship with reality in the broadest sense.
Since the locally accessible factors do not determine anything about the entire reality, our most general attitudes may be fully free – established not by the local circumstances, but by our innermost criteria. The question then arises, why not select approaches which would confirm us as conscious beings, rather than the materialistic ones, belittling and negating our status by switching human subjects into manipulable objects?
Of course, science is very useful on the local level - valid, effective, and potentially positive. The issue is, however, that a materialistic theory is unnecessarily associated with strict science. It would be therefore much more desirable to uphold science keeping in mind that human consciousness is the most primary factor, constituting a supreme absolute in and of itself, while its content appears within it only secondarily, amounting to relative half-truths at the most.
The empirical facts clearly have a practical meaning for people surviving within their local environment. They should not, however, be considered supreme truths, defining our psyches and limiting our potentials. Assigning to them final significance is foolishness, stemming form standard scientific dogmas.
The final wisdom, on the other hand is the realization that in light of the inscrutable absolute, absolutely nothing may be ruled out, and absolutely everything is potentially possible – in the final sense. Thus, our ultimate inner choices and preferences count the most. The end result is therefore total and unrestricted human freedom.
Obviously, all concrete plans, practical tasks, and immediate actions needing to be done here and now, must be addressed realistically, in relation to the surrounding circumstances and current conditions.
However, one’s most primary goals and values should come purely from within, without any subservience to the local factors. Such values, created independently, are most optimal, fully idealistic and free of any limitations.
This way we will no longer continue to fall into blind alleys. Instead, we will start creating the world truly on our own, using uncompromised choices, established by our very nature.
Po polskuCopyright © 1997 - 2017 by Andrzej Wodzianicki email@example.com