Conventional Reality

Main Points:

1) The concept of "conventional reality" (formalized reality).
2) The notion of a "multiplicity of realities" (alternate realities).
3) The notion of "reality formation" (or "sense of reality').
4) The distinction between sense-data and conceptualizing; the mind "correcting" the senses.

Discussion:

From simple, direct observation it is clear to me that what we call "culture" is a process of "reality formation."

Thus, from one's cultural programming, one believes that "two plus two equals four" and that "rivers do not flow upwards," while another is taught that "there are two worlds: one visible and the other invisible," or that "Man is the measure of all things."

We do not have a complete catalogue, of an encyclopedic nature, that details the "contents" of a culture. There might never be such a compendium and one is not really needed. Nonetheless, one can, generally, arrive at a sound understanding of what such a catalogue might include: from the Cat's Cradle to the Tao Te Ching and from Democracy to The Resurrection. In fact, a simple dictionary could serve as a good start for the repertoire of such a catalogue of the contents of a human culture. For each word is, already, a convention; a kind of small box, in which an aspect of conventional reality is "packaged," in sound and script; ready for transmission and dissemination.

Say the word "adverb" and eventually, it will lead you to another word, "modifier." Soon, you are led to a whole bunch of other words, such as "inclusion" or "relation." Subconsciously, you are told that some things, in the real world, have no other reason to exist but to "modify," alter, increase or decrease the circumstances or level of intensity, of some other things - which makes you wonder if such things are "real" in themselves. Does the word "more" indicate an existential "something", an entity, that exists and has material substance? Obviously not. At best, it refers to a degree, a relative degree, within a relationship, between two things being compared. But if I were to say, "more careful than...", then this carefulness is not "real," in the sense that it is not substance or material. At best, it represents a "state of mind." Its synonym might be "alertness" or "caution." Now, I am asked to believe, subconsciously, that there could be, that there is, more or less, a "state of mind." But isn't a state of mind, also, an intention? I must, then, also believe that intentions are liable of degrees of intensity.

Further, I am led to deduce that people are capable of intention "because" they are free agents and endowed with free will. Now, this free will might be confused, by the uninformed, as "something" in the nature of an organ like a liver or a kidney. This naive soul might, then, ask: "where is my free will located?" And his answer, most likely, might be, "Your soul 'has' free will." What does "has" mean, exactly, in such a context? Is free will a "function" of the soul? Some sort of "ability?" Or is it a "propensity?" Or is it an "endowment" granted by the deity? Each word determines a new model of the reality of this "soul."

If you then ask, "How might I find out that I do have this soul-thing? How do I become aware of its existence, within me? How is it that I am not permanently in touch with it?" One might, then, get a "circular" answer such as, "Your soul is manifested to you, in your acts of volition, in the choices you make, in your awareness of the world," and so on.

At this point, I am asked to believe that a ghost exists, within me, more "real" than my "ordinary self" - and which produces choices, moods, perceptions, conceptions, etc., and whose sole purpose is "to know God."

As we are getting deeper into the machinery of the collective mind, we are, clearly, losing our footing onto any ground for a real Reality, whatever it may be. We are, mostly, busy examining our Selfhood, to ourselves, in whatever terms that strike our fancy.

To further complexify and complicate matters, we also like to use many words to indicate the same "thing." Thus, we alternately use "soul," "mind" or "intellect"; when, in fact, each word carries different connotations, all equally vague.

Even worse: for each word, we have to fantasize a context in which this word is operative. Thus, "intellect" is operative in the context of mental operations such as mathematics, science or art; while "mind" is meaningful in the context of different operations, such as awareness, self-awareness, emotions, thoughts and such. "Soul," on the other hand, is only usable in a religious context, in the sense of "existence"; the meaning of human existence, the relating to the Totality or the Deity.

Each word carries its own implications: there is no Soul without a God or some Anima Mundi, in a pantheistic sense. There is no Mind without a dualistic assumption that separates "dumb" matter from some finer material, out of which this "mind" is made. You have to assume two "dimensions" to Reality, one within the other, like Russian dolls. There is no Intellect without mathematics, the arts, medicine and all the aspects of problem-solving, in an engineering sense.

Now, why wouldn't all of these words: Soul, Mind, Intellect. Anima or Persona indicate the same reality? If, indeed, there were such a factual, material or substantive entity? For such an Entity would, indeed, be capable of all of these potentialities and capable of performing all of these functions.

So, now, I am also asked to believe that any "Real" self, like some kind of vegetable, has two parts - one visible (the stalk) and one invisible (the root). That I have to surmise, guess, theorize: to know who and what I might "Really" be. In other words, I am asked to be "schizoid!"

And so it is that a "conventional Reality" arises within culture. That is, a Reality based on convention - or, if one prefers, on collective insanity! Now, this process of formalizing Reality mostly goes unnoticed and no one ever truly understands how it really works. We only see its surface phenomena: of laws, institutions, norms and such. Some expressly stated, mostly passed on by a very lively oral tradition, which no one could track down - even if they could make it their express purpose. Social scientists know what they know and like to think that this is all there is to know.

The point being that there surely is a conventional description of Reality and the world. Recently, science has taken on the job of kindly providing us with its own model of Reality. A very confused one: where some stellar formations seem to be older than the entire Universe that contains them; where the entire Universe was started by an imaginary "point" existing in no Time or Space, which, suddenly decided to "explode" and keep on expanding in the Nothingness of the Void, until it implodes upon itself as a result of two or three "forces" (that might be only one). Here, in this model, I am asked to believe:
1) That Nothingness (Void) actually "exists" - which contradicts the meaning of "to be" even in ordinary parlance.
2) That all of "What Is" could be and was reduced to one imaginary "point," some sort of "seed" that contained all of what exists today. A very neat trick: for what I am also supposed to believe is "dumb" matter, a huge construction game of infinitely small particles, numbering 30, 300, 3000, or an infinite number (of sub-atomic particles).
3) That I might be existing in one of an infinite number of Universes; all endowed with an infinity of parallel histories, but that, somehow, only one history at a time materializes.
4) That my "mind" does not "really exist", other than as a function of my brain as a self-representation: the ghost in the machine. However, and with no contradiction implied, notwithstanding that, I am also asked to believe that information rules the material Universe - as if it were, it too, yet another "ghost" in the Universal machine.

And so on...the catalogue of contents could not be itemized, as there really is no beginning or end to the fabric of culture.

Over the millennia, layers of cultural fabrications have accumulated and one must live with contradictions, falsehood and all sorts of insanities - if one is to remain the son of his father, the husband to his wife and a friend to the neighbour...in other words, it is very difficult to remain socialized, in any society, at any time, if you are to challenge the deeper premises. Hence, the reason for so many sages of the past to having looked for "salvation" in deserts, mountain tops, drug-stupors or solipsism of one kind or another: living, in effect, like Stoics, Skeptics, Epicureans, Rationalists, Existentialists, Nihilists, Vitalists, or as blind ritualists and fetishists of religious observances. They are all the same to me.

It is, therefore, normal and even healthy for one to suspect that Conventional Reality is but a sham, a con-game, the purposes of which being power, control, and Social Organization. Nothing much to do with "Reality." Hence, this "reality" remains as conjectural as ever; as problematic - though the elements of mystery and awe have been eliminated, thanks to the few thousand individuals, over the centuries, who have passed on to us the premises of Doubt. Not a small achievement, given the overwhelming dominion of cultures!

Hence, the questions remain: "Is there a Reality 'behind the veil' of conventional reality? What might this 'Absolute' Reality be? Can we transcend our self-hood; jump out of our skin; perform a quantum leap so as to glimpse this Reality? Is there, within our human nature, some untapped, never-used ability, native to all who exist in this Universe, that we never or seldom use in our social lives, simply because it is either unusable, needless or because we struggle against it?"

For millennia, if not for most of human time, people might have thought that they could not swim. They might have had taboos against swimming - thought it unnatural and unbefitting the "True Human Being." As a result, they could not swim. The same being true of flying, climbing mountains, exploring caves or deep water sea-diving. If you imagine the sea as the abode of the monsters, it will restrict your navigational skills to the shores of your native waters. If you believe that "if God wanted people to fly, He would have given them wings," then it will be very long, indeed, in human history, before a Leonardo da Vinci starts conceiving of mechanical wings.

If you believe in telepathy or empathy, you will never be able to tell apart your thoughts and emotions from the "other" - foreign thoughts and emotions which come to you, from the outside, as "broadcasts" from other minds. Even worse, if your culture believes all such claims to be an "illness" that should be treated and chemically controlled - then, indeed, any such ability would not only be wasted but even turn out to become detrimental to your freedom and well-being!

Now, suppose, that all who exist, within this Universe, are endowed with all the knowledge they could ever use, at birth? That they are born equipped with all the necessary means and ways to acquire Total Knowledge (and knowledge of the Totality)? Just suppose, for a minute. Just suppose, for the sake of argument. Contemplate this hypothetical scenario: you are born "complete," perfectly adapted, "at One with the One"....but you refuse to believe it. You demand proof of that which you are. Like in the tales, where the peasant is told that he was born the King's twin. You disbelieve and demand proof. Facing the latest portrait of the King, your eyes do not see the resemblance. When told the story as to how you became separated at birth from your Royal twin, you find the tale too fantastic and disbelieve it. You, then, reject all notions of claiming back your Royal tile and prerogatives. And...you remain a peasant!

Here, I adopt, playfully, a version of Pascal's Gamble: faced with two equally indifferent hypotheses (that is, neither one could be reasonably argued on the basis of fact), why not opt for the more pleasant one? Now, you could say that neither one should be considered. I could, on the other hand, argue that both hypotheses are, really, attitudinal choices and that attitude is, mostly, a matter of decision. How could I exist in this Universe without some kind of attitude? The absence of information is no excuse. Faced with three possible attitudes (or states of receptivity) the third being that of suspended judgment or Agnosticism, I am entitled - if not obligate - to choose my stance, even if it is arbitrarily.

Obviously, it becomes a matter of temperament and experience. Having lived the negative and agnostic attitudes, I may prefer the positive ones. I may well hence assume that I "belong" in this Universe, whatever it may be. The undeniable fact being that I am a product, a child of this Universe. I could then assume that whatever I "am," actually and potentially is perfectly adapted and attuned to the Universe.

I can alleviate all of my anxieties by merely saying to myself, "You come from nowhere; you are going nowhere; there is no where 'else' to go; you might as well settle down and "be at One with the One."

Then, I can glorify the whole bit, with the glorious title, "Positive Fatalism."

In the absence of divine knowledge, I am in the position of a gambler who can only play the odds. The only certainty I could achieve is, still, that "I think, therefore I must be." Whether I am an animal or the coming superman is a matter of indifference to me. I am not bigoted, either against animals or against supermen. In the grand scheme of things, both are equal. Neither will achieve immortality, of any kind. Both are equal. The only difference being that the superman is a legend in his own mind...the animal being, in fact, more realistic - as he does not conceive of Messiahs, Emperors of the World, Redeemers or Revelations from The Great Beyond, carved on stone tablets or written in sheep's entrails! Such delusions, unhappily, are only the lot of Humankind. Perhaps, the result of some racial dysfunction of the brain.

There is no evidence, that could reasonably convince me, as to the fact that I am an "accident" of Nature, condemned to exist as a separate reality, a Cosmic Freak.

To be clear on this point: I do not "believe" that "I" was ever preordained to exist. My existence itself is the result of randomness, chance, serendipity and chaos. But now, "I" am "here."

Part 2 to come...