#1 Truth
A basic assumption in science and the philosophy that spawned it is that there exists a physical reality that applies to everyone, whether or not anyone knows it—such as gravity, which is presumed to have existed from the start, holding stuff together long before humans discovered it. This reality is said to be “objective” in that it is composed of things or “objects,” including our bodies, which can be described and explained in terms that are “true”—tentatively, until better descriptions and explanations or “truths” are found. So, one can equate the truths or knowledge of science with “mere” beliefs because there can never be certainty that any idea is true in an absolute sense—that is, beyond question: All truths in science and philosophy are forever open to debate. (Even Réné Descartes couldn’t say with absolute certainty that he as an entity existed, despite the fact that he could think.) Religion, on the other hand, is based entirely on certainty, expressed as faith in one or more absolute truths. Most of the dispute between science and religion focuses on the difference between the natural and supernatural realities; however, the objective reality of science and the absolute truths of religion are identical in that both are assumed to apply to everyone, whether or not anyone knows it—Christians, for instance, believing Jesus is God even for those who don’t believe it (and woe to those who don’t). And yet, looking at the world’s many religions, the truths about which so many people have been so certain are so different—and so divergent: In effect, there is literally nothing about which everyone agrees, religiously. And consequently, unless one is intellectually committed or “blinded” by faith, there must be doubt about what, if anything, is true in the absolute. It seems impossible, therefore, working with both science and religion, to be sure about what’s actually going on. In contrast to both the objective and absolute truths that presumably apply to everyone, there is the “subjective” reality that exists in the mind of an individual or “subject”—the beliefs or knowledge a person holds that may or may not correspond to any objective or absolute truths that supposedly exist beyond that person—and there are those who have concluded, because of the mish-mash of people’s beliefs, that, contrary to classical philosophy and traditional religion, there is in reality no one reality that applies to all: There are only our many subjective realities, and all truths are personal. My own belief, and the platform on which the following essays rest, is that it is impossible to know for sure who’s right—scientists or religionists or subjectivists—which amounts to an agnosticism or fundamental doubt about everything—but within which one must chooses to believe what makes most sense—and which could include what the person believes to be objective, absolute and/or subjective truths. (The fact that many or most people automatically adopt the beliefs they are taught (and are pressured to keep) does not alter the innate—or, one might say, God-given—ability to question and change (especially since beliefs can be concealed from others).) In practice, the simple reality is that everyone operates according to what ot believes to be true at any given time, allowing that one can change. This and each of the following essays expresses a thought-stream or belief-set of mine about a different topic, so overall this might resemble an exercise in attention deficit (and the order in which the essays are read (if they’re read) is immaterial). At the same time, it may be assumed that these “mentations” are not isolated bubbles of blather but rather snippets from a system of thought in which connecting ideas do (or should) exist but are omitted here for the sake of brevity (and perhaps charity). In academia, one is obliged to cite the precedents for ideas expressed unless one is taking credit for originating them. While I draw from others, these essays are not in the academic style, so for the record, I don’t claim any idea here to be original—although I do take the credit (or blame) for the wording (so if there’s a plagiarism, I’ll be more than happy to pay a percentage of all the money I make from it). (I think it can be assumed that people in general have original thoughts quite commonly but are not recognized for them because they’re not expressed in contexts where recognition is conferred (and, of course, everyone’s thoughts are often original relative to otself (which, after all, is what most matters experientially)).) In any case, it is certainly not original to point out that a guru’s posture of certitude and expectation of agreement contrasts sharply with the agnostic’s premise of doubt and implicit invitation to dispute. The best any freethinker can do while working within doubt is to make one’s beliefs as clear and consistent as possible, and the best way to do this is to defend it against alternative ideas, and these essays are offered in that vein—as tentative truths that make the best sense to me. If there is a value here for anyone other than me, it should be to incite thought for ots own clarification: The platform here, as in the previous essays, is argumentation—not proselytization. (The value of clarity and consistency in one’s thinking is implied in the belief that there is order in the universe (with any chaos that appears to exist being integrated within the order—like chance events within the relative order and continuity of a person’s life).) (One point that calls for immediate clarification is that the “mad” in the title alludes to the anger I’ve felt about some issues—not to the insanity of which some (unqualified) individuals have accused me (and, by way of disclosure, I have been in session with psychiatrists twice in my life, both times in my (successful) effort to avoid being drafted into the Vietnam War—believing that not participating in it was elemental to protesting it).)
No Guru 