A New Mode of Understanding

No longer is mentality/rationality a satisfactory method for understanding life.

For those keeping track, you may have noticed that rational thought has a knack for leading one into the bottom of the cracks of existence where frustration and emptiness merge to void. On a more academic level of reflection, it seems that rational thought operates on a false pretense of objective sensification. In other words, it presents itself as objective statement of truth when in fact each mental and rational line of reasoning is nothing more than a "chess move," with a finite metaphorical structure, and a specific assumption that drives its core framework. When people begin to question the framework of their thoughts, they might discover that the thought is not reality - it is a representation that proposes no more than intention of communication and hopes of constructing ideas between beings of consciousness.


The problem with Mentality (especially as known by the terminology of scientific rationalism):

Typically, science is perceived as an investigation into the "external" world that (when correlated as consistent amongst different trials and observers) suggests a "truth" about our "objective reality."  Consciousness is often spoke of as a mere epiphenomenon (secondary condition), a complex emergence of thoughts, feelings, and awareness that is second to the cold and lifeless matter of the universe.  There are several problems with this mode of thinking; a mode of thinking that I believe is held by the masses, and not necessarily most of the astrophysicists of our time.

1. Consciousness can be said to be primary to us as experience - not the external world
2. Measurement is a finite system that affects results AND has NO ability to measure things such as consciousness.
3. Externalization into primary and tertiary "worlds" leads to a paradox or bifurcation of reality that scientists have NOT been able to resolve. (ie the connection between lifeless matter and complex consciousness)
4. An immense level of reductionism is used to understand the world.  Most don't realize that reducing something to its components does not give you a picture of the whole.  We can not use reduced components to create the whole picture.  While understanding components can be practical and helpful, it's the worldview that is created by this modality that troubles me.
5. Science tends on the side of objectification which diminishes the relational qualities between things in our Universe. ** I tend to hold relations and relationships as extremely important. *** Though science is improving upon this.  For instance, Newtonian physics saw time and space as separate.  Einstein's relativity shows a level of relational quality.  **** In other words, it might be best to say that science tends to limit relations to reductionistic formulas rather than interactive and integrated systems of connectedness.
   

The limits of mentality as a system of understanding:

1.  Tends towards dualistic notions of right or wrong, rather than integral forms of understanding that embrace the whole.
2. Operates with linguistic ambiguities and tends to use these ambiguities as an arguing point - often due to misunderstanding.
3. To think one thing is often to deny the other.
   
4. The mental system is, well, only a mechanism or a system and is often thought of as a truth of reality rather than a matrix that can be semi-illusory.  Rational thought has a substructure that it does not make us privy to.  There is an underlying meta-environment that any rational approach takes.  It may use spatial wording and operate on spatial frameworks that can be incorrect.  The different levels of reduction taken in rational thought structures often lead to illusory differences between different ways of thinking; modes that often lead to opposition, conflagration, or unintentional misunderstanding.
   

I am NOT claiming that reason is bad or unhelpful.

That would be seriously foolish because, after all, I am writing (I hope) logically and rationally.   My intention isn't to claim that rational thinking must be ended, but rather, to get people to explore the place of reason, what its pre-suppositions are, what kind of belief structure it creates, and how it affects our lives.  I would be willing to contend that the pre-structures or sub-structures that rationalism and mentality (being used interchangeably) operate on are typically unseen, unknown, and affecting humans without their knowledge.  In a sense then, many have a religious and dogmatic clinging to this method of understanding while being ignorant of what it is.  I imagine that distant ancestors of ours had many religious or mythical beliefs that operated on pre-conceived notions or underlying pre-suppositions that were, and may still be, opaque to everyday perceptual understanding.  Indeed, every system of understanding seems to rest on a foundation of ideas or notions.  I believe it is important for us to make these things diaphanous (or transparent) to us.  I hope the result would be that people would be less controlled by these assumptions and better informed of why and when they CHOOSE to use them (depending upon the task at hand at a specific moment).

The goal then is to make the method of understanding transparent to the being that is conscious and aware.






TBC - writing slowly sigh.