Science can only progress when people do it for the beauty of knowing the truth, and not for any other unconscious or dissociated reason.
That is, people can only do science properly and effectively when they are immensely self-aware. The ability to 'know the truth' is dependent on
having a long and complex relationship with falsehood. Falsehood is very much the norm amongst humans; therefore, truth conceals itself deep within
the evidence of 'what is', to which our unconscious, affective systems are routinely misleading us so as to keep us in line with our 'gods'.
Within each of us lies this:
A confused, multiplicitous mass of self-states. Each governed by their own 'attractor', or value system. Each 'paired' with a particular string of
objects and people which embody the value. The people and their relations are the source of the values existence; but the objects they associate with
become embodied representations of the value; the value therefore is 'embodied' in the object: seeing or observing the object will trigger the
organizing presence of the value in your neurobiological system.
You cannot do science - or anything that involves truth or coherency - without contextualizing, restraining, and controlling, the complicated dynamics
that come from living in such a diverse and different world.
My values versus your values
Can we agree that there are multiple values, but not all of them are equal?
Since our nervous systems emerged and are reactive with the world in terms of 'three relational feelings', the logic of how we relate should be
couched in terms of which feeling is present in anything relational we do. In this world, a great deal of our consciousness is regulated by 'fun',
or the desire to play. When your texting people; when your surfing the net; when your watching T.V: all these cognitive relations are mediated through
the feelings of 'fun'.
Now, other feelings accompany and exist as well; but they are not motivating impetus
The impetus is clearly 'to have fun', or 'to entertain
the self'. The self moves in much that it does out of a need to play.
On the other hand, fun is almost never occuring alone, as it seems to be regulated by 'care'. Care is so essential in everything that a
self-conscious agent does that we can almost justify its usage in anything we do: I 'cared to do it' that way, for instance.
I care to have fun; I care to enliven myself; I care to masturbate. The last one integrates a motivational system that long predates consciousness,
yet plays such a huge role within it. Care emerged on top of, and in relation to, sexual energy. And indeed, much of what we do as a society, or the
way and manner we regulate sex, has much to do with the wisdom of 'correlating' to what causes distress; a society out of whack, or out of tocuh
with how all our various needs operate, gives priority and precedence to sex, particularly at the expense of care.
Fun can drive this attitude. The motto "mirth is king", for instance, comes from an attitude that puts sex and fun ahead of care, more or less
forsaking truthful knowledge in the process since it is care and care along that allows us to know the world truthfully.
But in any case, care is essential, and hence, is described by me as mediating a logical relation between the 'yearning for fun', and the
'awesomeness of contemplating existence'.
Awe is the feeling which emerges when one gets subsumed in existential thought. A positive reinforcing dynamic emerges as the self's inward
reflection on the ability of its knowing seems to lead to a deepening of that feeling. But this applies to both ones own knowing as well as the
external world itself: the world triggers awe by being so wonderfully and incredibly ordered. Its sounds are beautiful; its sights are beautiful. It
draws our attachment to it and in the process stimulates our consciousness in a very consequential way - a way which, if allowed to fully complete
itself, has a profound effect on the personality, nevermind its capacities and abilities as a self.
Yet, the world exists, and it wasn't you who created it. You and I exist, but can we know how much more exists beyond our vista? The horizon is ever
there, ever blocking the unknown - and so, a strange paradox: the change in being that accompanies the awareness of "I am the universe knowing
itself" is still nevertheless delimited by its own physical embeddedment and embodiment in a specific location in what, according to cosmology, is a
universe far greater in extent than we appreciate.
The grandiose conclusion leads to a mind that seems to prioritize fun and awe at the expense of care. It's as if nothing else were real; other
peoples feelings, their sufferrings, their histories: the fact that everything is structured means we are all the way we are for good reason; but to
think that that exempts us from the responsibility of acting in ways that help, as oppposed to hurt, others, is childish self-serving nonsense that
appeals only to the most undeveloped minds - minds that apparently haven't been 'roasted' enough by anxiety and fear to know whats good for it.
When a person acts within the limits of what is, they are not feeling as if 'something is wrong'. If something is wrong, a reason exists - and it
isn't a very 'sexy' one either.
The pleroma is the belief that the human being in its natural state experiences reality as a 'fullness', as perfect the way it is, which more or
less means, if 'it' tells me something, I adjust myself to its shift, no if's and's or but's.
The megalomanical attitude that sees the physical 'external' world as "maya", or "demirurge", is setting itself up for disaster, as you are a
function OF IT, not the other way around it. Human societies precede you; and those societies imprint you with their structures - no if's and's or
but's. Brahma or the Biblical God are irrelevant; real human societies preceded us, and it is they, and the knowledge that they had to work with,
which we've inherited.
If one is sane, one can appreciate that a society with exponential levels of more knowledge than previous societies is likely to have a more profound
and coherent representation of how reality works - and indeed, modern science has painted a profound picture which allows us, if we only care to help
ourselves (and our progeny) to live more accurately, and therefore, to live so that we increase our physiological wellbeing, our experience of
enlivenment as social animals, as well as 'children of God', or the awareness that we, as conscious animals, have come to exist in a way where our
consciousness can itself be integrated into our social relations with one another and the world but in terms of a higher level efficacy - where
thought can transform (but not create) matter.
Hopefully too, the physical and technological sciences can grow side by side with a more complex scientific spirituality. All of this follows from the
logic of caring - of allowing care to organize our various states, so that neither awe nor play turn us into megalomaniacs or people fearful of the
When you trust nature, you trust that at your core lies a goodness. This goodness is spacious, if only the mind will realize it doesn't need to run
from what disturbs it, but rather, should question what causes it disturbance: the methods of mindfulness, of asking "what is the nature of this"...