(Important note regarding the mind set from which this series is written
and from how it is intended to be read)
Reality
Perception Or The Way It Is
In the last part of the series, I offered my insight into the goal of our spiritual journey - that of re-identifying with our Infinite Eternal Self. As one of my favorite authors in the realm of metaphysics, U.S.Andersen, puts it, "in separation, we accept the limitations of the flesh and the inhibitions of the ego, and thus we fall short of God consciousness". What Andersen is referring to here is the loss of identity with our True Self. God consciousness is the awareness of our infinite and eternal roots.
Fundamental to the overall theme of this series is this notion of "identity" - the loss of identity with our Godhood and the assumption of identity with ego. It is in this false identity that consciousness closes and stays closed, and here we are speaking of both the individual, and, extending that to mass consciousness, to the planet as a whole.
Re-identity of course involves simultaneous dis-identity with the ego self. The two go hand in hand. While it is true that during the transition phase, there will be movement back and forth between the two identities, the fact is that it is nearly impossible to be simultaneously focused in both identities at the same moment. It is difficult to be focused in Love while flaming in ego. Likewise, it is difficult to be caught up in ego rage while being centered in the peaceful state of the True Self.
It's probably apparent how all of this is tied to our theme of the openness / closedness of consciousness. But let me state it anyway. Open consciousness is the default position of Godhood identity; closed consciousness is the default position of ego self identity. In each of these identities, we have different perspectives of life and of that referred to as God, and even further, a differing experience of reality.
Earlier in this series, when speaking about a spectrum of consciousness, I alluded to the concept of differing perceptions of reality related to one's state of consciousness. The subject of reality - especially assessment of reality - is extremely important to our discussion of the current state of planetary consciousness and our desire to shift it in an upward direction. It is the predominating closed state of consciousness that keeps it static, i.e., that thwarts a rise. A rise in consciousness cannot occur when the mass of consciousness insists that there is an absolute fixed reality, and then takes every possible means conceivable to support that notion. So reality is the theme of this installment; and since it is a much larger subject than you may realize, it will likely carry over to the next installment as well.
The Way It Isn't
If we are to adopt a position of open consciousness as our way of living and being, then we will be inclined to give up any mind set where any variation of the thought "that's just the way it is" has a place. We will no longer think or utter the words "that's the way it is" because we will realize there is no fixed reality, and that there is no particular way "that it is".
You might think that's just crazy. But I'm here to claim that all we can really state is the way a thing "appears to be" at a particular time in a particular instance. Just stick with me while I try to show you why this isn't so far-fetched as you may at first think.
From the whole mix of mass consciousness we derive a sense of reality. We might claim that what is real is what we perceive with all of our senses. To most people, reality, to put it simply, just seems obvious, and tangible, and rather consistent enough that we pretty much expect that everyone else would perceive the same things we would in any given situation. We are in fact told by many, especially religious followers, that reality is absolute.
Christian apologists cite a theory proposed by Aristotle, called Correspondence, as a way of determining truth. Essentially it says that if a statement (of reality) matches the way the world really is, then you have a true statement. The way the theory states it is: "To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true".
At first reading, this seems to make sense. But upon closer examination, a problem begins to emerge that renders the theory of correspondence not completely satisfying. It looks like the theory can easily fall into a case of circular reasoning. To wit: I claim it is A because it is A. But how do I know it is A? Because I perceive it to be A. The problem here is that perceptions are subjective - not objective. And, as we will see, all we really know are our perceptions.
The point is that whether or not something is a particular way, in itself, is questionable. Here is what I mean. It is possible that we may indeed perceive a particular thing as it really is, but it is also possible to perceive it to be a particular way when it really is not that way. To take a famous example, prior to the time of Copernicus and Galileo, it was claimed and widely accepted to be true, that the earth was the center of the universe. But as our two objectively minded observers came to realize, earth wasn't even the center of our solar system. There are zillions of such examples. This makes the point that we may think we know how something is, but we cannot always know for absolutely sure that's the way it really is. And this is the problem with correspondence theory. To claim of something that it is A because it is A, becomes a totally meaningless claim.
The notion of correspondence assumes that our perceptions are inerrant, and that therefore we can always know the way a thing is. [By the way, let us use the word "thing" in this discussion as philosophers use it -- to refer to objects, events, sequences, facts, states of affairs, situations, properties.] But there are a number of reasons why things may appear to b a certain way, but unbeknownst to us, are really otherwise. In such a case, the person stating the way it is, is making a true statement so far as it appears to be the way it is; but it is not really the way it is. If it is really a different way than we can know, would it then be legitimate to say that the person making the statement is lying? You might agree with my answer, "Not necessarily".
And further, what about this? What if I were actually intending to lie, and in lying, stated with insistence the way a thing is, even though my statement does not at all comport with the way it appears to everyone else. To all appearances, everyone would disagree with me -- even argue with me, and agree that the way it is, is not the way I have stated it to be. But lo and behold, unbeknownst to all of us, the lie I was stating turns out to be the way it really is, and the perceptions of all the observers who were not persuaded by me, were themselves in error. While they were in error, so was I. My intended lie may have been true, correspondence-wise, but my actual belief was in error. The ironic thing here is that none of us actually knows that my lie was actually correct and that those others were wrong because none of us is privy to the unknown piece of information that has deceived our perceptions. I cannot even know that my attempted lie was in actuality truth, in terms of correspondence theory. Situations like this would seem to throw a wrench into the works of correspondence. After all, what good is it as a determinate of what is true, to have correspondence that is unknown, or to have apparent correspondence, where the unknown reality would reveal there is none?
All of this raises a very profound question. Which is better: to say that something is true when it corresponds to the way it appears to be; or to say it is true when it corresponds to the way it is, even though unbeknownst to us, we don't know the way it actually is? The point I am making here is that there may be a particular way a particular thing is, but if we do not have a complete picture because there are things about it that cannot be known at the time we are assessing it, of what relevance is it that it's a particular way? After all, there are many mysteries in science and medicine, where things work a particular way, but we have no idea how or why. All we know is that they work. All we can really state is, the way a thing appears to be at a particular time in a particular instance. So the question is, why isn't that satisfactory enough for us until such time any unknowns becomes known?
It would seem that whether or not there is a fixed knowable reality is not all that crucial, since it is apparent we can never be sure that we know what it is anyway. In fact, consider that it is the decision to settle on a particular assessment of reality, and maintaining with insistence that it is final -- that there is nothing more that can be known -- that is really the problematic position. Such decisions to fix upon assessments of reality with unrelenting insistence tempt self delusion and often lead to needless divisiveness. Is it not better then to be in a mode of just continually reassessing reality - to just accept that reality exists in the present moment?
None of this means that we can't say that we can know many things and that the knowing works for us in terms of navigating and understanding our physical world. It just acknowledges that we don't know the rest of the story, and that when we do get new revelations, we can modify what we thought we knew about the world accordingly. In the end, all we do anyway is come to agreements about many things that they appear to be a particular way. And with that agreement, we just go ahead and say that is the way it is. And that is the way it is until such time some unknown parts come to be known or some anomaly occurs revealing that our initial assessment was not entirely accurate. Then, if we want to be consistent with what appears to be true, we will modify our assessment accordingly. In fact, that is exactly what science is about. Science is an iterative process. It never says, "this is the final absolute picture".
Let's Call it Alpha Reality
Meanwhile, having said all of that, there are many, many things for which we might confidently say are known in their totality. To get you going with possible examples of what I mean here, consider instances where we appear to have the complete picture and would not anticipate the possibility of an anomaly -- the sun rises in the east and sets in the west ... this nut is the right size to fit this bolt ... 2+2=4 ... we experience gravity on earth … my coffee cup is sitting on my desk ... in measurement, we have agreed that an inch is a specific length and that twelve of them make up a foot ... in chemistry, we have agreed upon the elements in the periodic table, (but, might it be altered with new discoveries?) For the purpose of continuing our discussion here, let us refer to these types of facts that we can all easily agree upon because they work for us - things for which we foresee no anomalies and that we would consider as true - let's refer to these as alpha reality.
Interestingly, this idea of alpha reality can be applied to closed societies as well, societies such as isolated primitive tribes for example that have no contact with the outside world. Many of the elements of their alpha reality would not be part of our alpha reality because they would not fit our reality of a modern technologically advanced world. But the content of their alpha reality works for them.
Now, we may see alpha reality as stable, in that there appears to be no possibility of anomalies; but still that does not obligate us to label it as "fixed". Attempting to label it as fixed in fact is what perverts it. Consider our primitive tribes that may apply healing methods that work for them; these techniques that are part of alpha reality for that society will likely be totally rejected by modern societies. We don't perceive those techniques as having much potential of working for us. The question then is: do they not work for us because they are not part of our alpha reality; or, are they not part of our alpha reality because we have fixed beliefs that they do not work for us?
The Preference for fixed beliefs
What's interesting is that we have what I am calling alpha reality (which is so stable that it could be accepted by many without great objection, as fixed reality); then we have fixed beliefs about reality, which is something else altogether different. The latter are not dependent upon the sort of agreement that comes from mankind's anomaly free experience.
Here's what I mean. Needless to say, for many people, what is true may not be anywhere near as important as maintaining already fixed beliefs about reality, regardless of whether they are supported by widespread experience and evidence. As we have frequently alluded to in this series, the ego distorts its perception of reality to conform with its preferred beliefs about the world -- beliefs that are highly important to its need to maintain a stable self -identity.
When we have dogmatic beliefs that very much depend upon the original assessment of reality, we will be inclined to ignore new evidence and reject new discoveries that don't comport with our fixed beliefs. We will tend to stick to our original assessments even when evidence shows otherwise. Rather than acknowledge that the new evidence proves our dogmatic beliefs to be grossly erroneous, we will deny, distort and spin it to fit the assessment of reality that we refuse to change.
Fascinating, isn't it? That guided by ego, grasping for stable self-identity is far more important to the individual than stable reality. The ego fixated individual prefers the stress, strain and conflict involved in fighting for and defending the distorted picture of reality over the peace of alpha reality that is founded in evidence and experience and open to modification with the appearance of anomalies.
Always An Incomplete Picture of Reality
Still not convinced that giving up the idea of absolute reality is viable? OK, let's delve into it a bit more deeply. Let's continue with this idea that we cannot always know the complete picture of reality. For example, we are able to perceive only a relatively small range within the electromagnetic spectrum. We only see light within a limited range of radiation. We can only hear sounds within a relatively small range of frequencies. Most of us are aware that dogs and bears have a far keener sense of smell than we do. All of this points out how that relying upon our unaided senses alone, we are missing out on great segments of reality.
Of course our senses can be enhanced with the assistance of technology. What we could not in the past detect with our unaided senses, has, at a later time, become observable. For instance, our vision is limited in terms of the size of objects we can see or the distance they are from us. But with the invention of the microscope, we are able to actually see the cells that make up biological life. The microscope is, in fact a great example of how our perception of reality was expanded. It opened up to us not only this vast new world of the cellular makeup of biological life, but as well, the role of bacteria and viruses in disease. Prior to that technological advance, we had no idea of the world of the microbe. Likewise with the telescope, we are able to explore the distant heavenly bodies. Many other technological devices allow us to detect other aspects of energy within the electromagnetic spectrum that our unaided senses are blind to. We are able to look back to the very beginnings of the Universe and even view phenomenon such as star factories where new stars are being born, and black holes where old stars are being consumed.
While all of these technological enhancements to our perceptive abilities are to be appreciated, they also demonstrate how our assessments of reality are influenced by them. They make us realize that the new vistas they open bring with them brand new expanses of unknowns. An enlightened consideration of the course of mankind's experience would thus lead us to conclude that it is unlikely, or even more, impossible, that we can ever fully understand everything about the universe. This would seem especially so when it comes to higher dimensions, the transcendent realm. There it seems, we meet both the limitations of our five sense mechanism, and seemingly of our reasoning minds. Both are designed (respectively) to perceive and to understand, our three dimensional world. As the mystics and spiritual masters teach us, the way to break those limitations is to switch from reliance upon sensory data and rationalization to the vehicle of intuition.
In closing, advanced tools of observation have brought about new and amazing discoveries both at the astronomical level and at the micro level of quantum physics. And as to our point of there being no need to have a fixed assessment of reality, nothing could make it more clearly than this fact of the never-ceasing opening of new vistas of discovery. How can we ever say that we know what reality is when our perception of it is constantly being updated with advances in technology and the new discoveries that come with it? And also, what could be a clearer substantiation of the notion that closed consciousness is a straitjacket that keeps the mass consciousness confined and static?
End
of Part 7; look for Part 8, coming.
Copyright
©, 2007, William Gunderson
All Rights Reserved
No
part of this article may be reproduced for distribution without
the express permission and consent of the author. To obtain permission,
contact the author via email.
Return to Article Index