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.