What do I think ? Come on, I invite you to think along. Be prepared that you might be hindered by my inability to put it simply, because my english is far from perfect, and I am also a terrible typer.
Subjects:
- nature of reason, and thought, thinking as a tool in descripting and understanding the world
- evolution of human consciusness and the capacity to reason (to think properly)
- distortions resulting from projecting our present consciusness based on our present abilities, to the past, resulting in a biased, dismissive attitude towards religious traditions
We believe many things. Your assertion about that there is no [B]generally[/B] right way is apparently correct.
In these matters, “right” si relative, and it depends on so many factors that it would be apparently silly to stubbornly stick to just one way.
This can lead us to the conclusion that there is really little we can really know, and we should give up the idea of having “one ring to rule them all”.
This does not mean though that for a given person, in a given cultural, social environment, in a given civilization, and in a given time, there is no “right way”. No, we just admitted that a generallly accepted “Way” is perhaps too much to ask for, having the existing variety of ways.
So we touched the question from two sides: from a general point of view, and from a relative, personal point of view. Apparently, they are two ends, “extremes”, what seem to exclude each other. This is a dualist way of thinking. We say, either there is a general way, truth, than all personal ways, truths are relative, and thus, less true, or, there are as many truths as human beings, and a general truth, common denominator is non-existing. One view reduces variety, the other one reduces objectivity. Thus, if we pay good attention to this reasoning, we must say: if we are unable to think past true and not true, black and white, me and the world, we are left in this state of division. Our very thinking is built on distinctions like this, and clearly, the ability to make distinctions is one of the building blocks of a healthy thinking. In having these distinctions, thoughts, we must realize that they are helpers, assumptions, and in a way, arbitrary.
We need to be careful, for example when we say such things as: if A is true, and B is not A, than B is not true. This might be so in a binary system where only 1 and 0 is possible, true and not true, but in a non binary system, between true and not true, there are degrees, other values. Our very thinking works by trying to segment reality to bits of information where the relations of bits to each other are clearly determined. We try to comprehend the complexity of our world experience by disecting it to pieces, thoughts, what are no longer divisible - unquestionable truths - constants, or if not, variables for what the validity is easy to come upon to. Shortly, we believe that the world is descriptible, and deschiperable, [B]comprehensible[/B].
What all this tells about us, human beings ? That we are intelligent beings capable of clear thinking where the flow from on thought to another is determined by strict rules. No thoughts are accepted what cannot be reasonably arrived to. Now who decides what is reasonable ? Our thinking. What is our thinking built on ? On our thinking expereinces. We must realize that what we call reasonable thinking is of linear fashion, and it is developed in time, it is carried out from thought to thought.
For such a mind, traditions, philosophies, religions often appear unreasonable. Thy operate with terms what are seemingly meaningless, unjustified, and usually we do not witness any thought processes what we could call reasonable. At best we allow them to be myths, tales, artistic creations.
Reasonable thinking, or what would it mean, is most visible in Artifical Intelligence experiments. These show, that reasonable thinking alone can start somewhere, on some premises, than arrive reasonably to thoughts what do not make sense at all. Why do we not realize the limitations of thinking, is because we rarely use this process exclusively, (so many times we accept things and thoughts as facts) and when we do, we always apply it to segments of reality, where the direction of thinking is clearly ruled and determined by facts what need no explanation. The more we leave the ground of facts (axioms in science), the more hard is to apply this kind of thinking. And usually, what we call facts, are unquestionable, repeatable sensorial expereinces. Reasonable thinking belongs to the sensorial world, we learn to focus our attention on various impressions, and realize the laws of their interaction. In a way, human thinking, and science what is built on it, is to create coherent, cohesive thought systems. What do we mean by that ? That the world is descriptable, presentable, explainable through thoughts where we start from “the facts”, than we witness, create, comprehend certain laws, determined relationships and other “truths” what are not immediatly experiencable truths.
The ability to think is not the same for anybody, it is something we learn to perform, and this ability was gained throughout history. The more we exercise it, the better we become at it. It is an illusion to think, that ancient people were able to think the way we do, and even today we posess the ability to think faultlessly. Our perception is based on the few exceptions of famous individuals whose thoughts have passed unto us. Aristotle was a great thinker, and his ability to think surpasses greatly that of the average human being today. He was not the norm. The norm were the average people, who were far behind Aristotle … or other thinkers of the past. If we really look back based on hystorical evidence, what we will see there is is another consciusness. First, people were much more determind by familial and national bonds, and their consciousness is seemingly permeated by religious, spiritual thoughts. Even that of Aristoteles and other great thinkers. What we do today, is that we look back, and because today the average thinking capacity has grown to the level, that we are able to comprehend Aristotle (what was not true for the people of his age) we project our existing clear consciusness based on our versatile thinking to the people of the past. And based on this projection, we are not able to understand correctly the ancient human beings. We say, they really were silly. We do not realize, that their religious thoughts, were the vestiges of a once existing clairvoyance. Those people were not naive, or victims of blind fate, or religious manipulation. When we think this, we just project our clear consciounsess to the past. Today, if we meet someone who fully, wholeheartedly believes in the dogmas of some religion, we say: he clearly is unable to apply his own clear consciusness, and thinking ability, otherwise he would realize what nonsense those dogmas are. He must be brainwashed, manipulated, or brain damaged, something is clearly wrong with him. This is the general attitude towards religion of many people today. I wanted to show, what the real causes of such perception are: the assumption that ancient people had this same clear consciunsess and ability to think, that we have. No, they did not have that. What they had, was another kind of consciusness, not clear as ours, not linked to ones’s individuality, as that too was yet weak, a kind of consciousness ruled by intuitions, imaginations, a kind of dream like consciusness, where people were not entirely left to the outer expereinces, but where such facts as telepathy, cairvoyance were much more common occurences. The soul life of those people was not permeated by “religious thoughts” based on an external causes, as we would think today, those religious thoughts were living thought expereinces. Reminiscence of these abilities can be found even in todays people. Why these are discarded today, is mostly because they happen unconsciusly, and a healthy mind will reject any unconscious expereince as unreliable. They were more reliabale back than, but evolution of consciounsess followed the route towards what we have today, and the old consciousness “died” out. Evolution is carried out in steps. The future will extend the rule our clear consciousness and self awarness, to those areas of our being what are yet unconscious, or with another expression, suprasensible.
In light of the wisdom of those who, while arriving to our present day clear consciousness, and ability to think, went as far that they aquired the ability to extend their clear consciusness to the realm what for most of us is still sub- and unconscious, we need to give the benefit of reasonable doubt to religious traditions. They might appear foggy, or fantastic, yet, once we will be able to asess the sub- and unconscious realities of our beings, we will be able to interpret them better. The study of religions, myths works on our beings because the higher wisdom and truth in them acts on our unconscious nature. If they did not work, people had given up their religious activities for long, yet, as we see, some stubbornly cling to them. If we see it this way, we can say: as free people with strong individuality, and great ability to reason, having a clear consciounsess, we arrive to a point where we can at least accept that there is more to religions, anceint traditions, and philosphies than meets the eye. I can even have a religious practice, because I have arrived to the understanding that it might work in ways I am not aware of. Surely, I am not content with this, so I will try my best to extend the light of my consciusness to these unknown areas of my being, but for now, I’ll accept the fact that I am how I am, a being not yet complete, but with great capacity for growth.
Thus, we carry on what we have brought with us, and in time we will grow to it’s full comprehension.
