insights
The statement that “Something that lacks verification through the truth-producing methodology cannot be considered as true, however it may otherwise be regarded and whatever other value may be attributed to it” may appear to create a major problem. After all, what could be the value of something that is not true, and how can one sustain the many rationalizations that are essential to one’s perceived well being that cannot be successfully vetted under the truth-producing methodology? But, in fact, this apprehension is groundless. In order to see why, it is necessary to understand some of the implications of other functionings of the mind/brain.
We tend to regard all the brain activity of which we are aware as thinking. However, if we restrict the term “thinking” to trying to figure out what is going on (that is, to rational thought based on some proven truth) then it’s apparent that a great deal of what the brain/mind does has little to do with “thinking” in that sense. The brain has as its primary purpose keeping its owner a going concern - that is, as healthy, happy and successful as possible. But we know that the architecture and chemistry of someone’s brain, as well as life experience, are different to some degree from everyone else’s. Therefore, what those terms (healthy, happy and successful) mean, and how that purpose will be accomplished, can differ from individual to individual. In consequence, the kind of rationalizations minds make can differ, since each person’s rationalizations are a function of his/her peculiar neurology and experience – their idiosyncratic configuration. There is no way to test the appropriateness of someone else’s rationalizations, since there is no way to check her/his perceptions from the “inside” – that is, to replicate their idiosyncratic configuration.
On the basis of the old paradigm that the minds of human beings are essentially the same, it was reasonable to infer that my rationalizations would be true for everyone else if only they considered the issues in the same way that I have. After all, if I create or adopt a way to rationalize things that takes me from despair to bliss, that rationalization will seem the essence of truth to me. There’s a strong psychological reason why people appropriate the term truth for their rationalizations. Since they provide the foundations for a feeling of self worth and mental health, it is crucial that they are secure, and their labeling as “truth” provides such psychological security. But we can end up with the dilemma of me having a rationalization which I regard as a profound “truth”, but which may have little meaning or, indeed, be incomprehensible to someone with a different idiosyncratic configuration. For example, the statement “you can’t fall out of the universe” is profoundly and deeply meaningful to me. For others the statement “Jesus Christ is the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” has a profound and deep meaning. I don’t connect with the second statement at all and I suspect those that do, don’t connect with the first.
This dilemma is resolved by our recognition that the paradigm is wrong. There is an essential sameness but it is limited to the attributes exploited by our truth-producing methodology. Beyond those attributes, brain/minds exist in extraordinary variety and each has a need to rationalize its own idiosyncratic configuration. So it is apparent that in addition to the truth, each individual mind is sustained by personal rationalizations (which I shall herein after call insights) vital to the support of his/her particular idiosyncratic configuration. Since these insights are crucial to our mental health, we now turn to the issue of how they are “secured” once we have lost the justification for labeling them as “truth”.
Having a methodology for finding the truth does not constitute a claim that any issue scrutinized under it will always result in a conclusion of true or false. In fact, there are three possible outcomes for such an inquiry – true, false, or undetermined. It is the issues raised by the concept of the “undetermined” that can secure our insights. Things are undetermined because our truth-producing methodology is unable to produce a definitive answer and this occurs for either of two reasons.
First, there are those issues that in theory could be determined but as of yet have not been. There may be more variables bearing on an issue than have so far been considered, or a solution could require a radical change in perspective. But for whatever reason, we have not be able to reach the end point of our methodology at which there is one, and only one, explanation that rationally accounts for all the data. For example, certain anomalies arise when we try to reconcile the theory of quantum mechanics with relativity. Both theories have ample experimental feedback confirming their status as truth at the scales each is used, so it seems apparent that we need a deeper theory to provide that reconciliation. Two candidates being offered as that deeper theory are quantum loop gravity and an alternative super string approach. Both seem to rationally account for the observable data, but to date, no demonstration has been possible that would show one or the other (or neither) to be true. That is, it is the only theory that accounts for the data and excludes the possibility that any other explanation could be true. So the issue is undetermined. Even though a preponderance of physicists seems to prefer the super string idea, if quantum loop is more to my taste – I’m entitled, at least for now. Whether or not such issues will ever be determined is, perhaps, a function of such things as improved technology and the kind of limitations that may apply to the innate capabilities of human understanding.
Of course, insights based on issues in this category are at risk if and when the issue is determined. The current Dalai Lama was once asked what would happen if “science” proved some doctrine of Tibetan Buddhism was false and his response was Tibetan Buddhism would have to change. He was then asked if he would hold to this even if reincarnation could be disproved and he replied yes. But being the extremely droll and perceptive fellow that he apparently is, he countered with the observation that reincarnation would be extremely difficult to disprove. It is the understanding revealed by the Dalai Lama’s observation that brings us to the second category of the undetermined.
Some issues are intrinsically undeterminable. Whenever the possibility of an objectified base from which to reason does not exist, we are dealing with the intrinsically undeterminable. A simple example would be food preferences. Palates vary according to inheritance and conditioning. Since there is no preferred way to be human, there is no way to objectify a food preference. Although the terms true or false are meaningless with regard to this issue, my food preferences are still very real and important to me. The category, however, encompasses much more than food preferences. It is apparent that such things as the arts and religion also are included. And in like manner, even though the terms true or false are meaningless with regard to my artistic and religious preferences, those preferences are still very real and important to me.
Therefore, for insights based in the undetermined, the categorization of true or false does not apply by definition, nor can their appropriateness be tested (we can’t check someone else’s perception from the “inside”). So their security rests in the recognition that no one else has a basis to call them into question.
Now, the fact that the terms true and false do not apply is not to suggest that insights rooted in the undetermined are of only personal interest. People who have similar experiences and/or brain architecture and chemistry may share insights. These are the people from whom we draw our friends and mates. So although insights are individual, they are not private. Here it is necessary to raise a caveat; no matter how widely an insight is shared, mere numbers of adherents never transform an insight into a truth. Insights can become truth only through being successfully vetted through the truth-producing methodology.
Insights can be shared and exchanged. We can compare different insights, then modify and combine them in ways to produce a completely new idea. An idea produced through this process is of unknown quality. That is, it could be true, false or undetermined. However, the variety of insights provides fodder for the imagination, and it is the power of imagination to amuse and intrigue that enriches the human condition. Indeed, the unique nature of the human spirit arises from its creative capacity. Now our truth-producing methodology has no facility for creativity. It has only the capability to test for truthfulness, and the only source for things to test are new ideas arising from the creative manipulation of insights. So our ability to progressively obtain the truth is critically dependent on new ideas to mine for truthfulness, and those ideas are in turn dependent on the variety of insights. Increasing that variety increases the probability for success in our pursuit of the truth about the nature of things.
So the critical nature of insights to the human condition is apparent. It is clear that everyone has a right to her/his insights and to be free from the imposition of the insights of others. It is equally clear that our access to the truth is dependent on maximizing the variety of insights through the social affirmation of personal freedom.
Finally, the above remarks regarding inviolability of insights assume that no one would cling to an insight that the truth-producing methodology has shown to be false. Of course, in the real world this is not the case, since this occurs in two types of irrational person - the mentally ill and the ideologically committed.
- Home
- Introduction
- Part 1
- Truth
- Insights
- The Human Condition
- Education
- Human Decency
- Enlightenment
- Part 2
- Culture Demystified
- The Elite
- Mediocrities
- Self-regard
- Self and Society
- Part 3
- Morals, Ethics, and Virtue
- The Concept of Evil is a Bad Idea
- Religion
- Patriotism
- Freedom
- Market Capitalism
- Wealth Distribution