Things are Exactly as They Appear to Be

My father used to often remark that "things are never what they seem to be". This remark usually referred to a conundrum or disppointment in my social life, something not working out---the best guy not getting the position or job, etc.. Things are not what they appear to be is a wise remark. However, I say that things are exactly as they are (that is, as they appear to be).

Realist Psychology begins with the actual fact or thing, and asks how must the universe be that such a phenomenon is possible. For example, a chipmunk scurries quickly across my porch. Call it a phenomenon, a scurrying four-legged mini-mammal---in other words attempt to decompose the experience of the 'chipmunk' to other substrates or ingredients in an effort to better grasp the chipmunk. One can see that the vast domains of scientific inquiry whether in isolation or in terms of systematic inquiry (quantum mechanics, neuroscience, cybernetics, bioevolution---or the integral synthesis of all of these meta-theories), all proceed toward a goal of better understanding of the phenomenon via analysis. But I say that the total grasp of a given phenomenon cannot be enhanced one iota by turning away from the thing.

For example, I am looking at a candle. This event occurs now. I am reporting this event. I have this experience---the truth of this candle along with an immediate grasping of the candle with nothing left over---the truth only manifests to human beings in now moments.

Almost without exception philosophers and scientists, phenomenologists, theologians, neuroscientists and quantum physicists in the present era all move away (above, below, supra, infra, outside, beyond, within, etc...) from the given thing in order to 'better' explain this thing. This has been a constant and constitutive theme of modern psychology. There is the assumption that decomposition of a thing better reveals the truth of this thing, as for example, this candle is "better" understood as wax, fire and wick, and brass candlestick, and so on... And wax is "better" understood molecularly, and the experience of the candle is "better" understood as a neuroscientific event, and that the synthesis of knowing this candlelight is better grasped through quantum mechanics.

Descartes moved away from the experience of the candle wax through "imaginative counterfactual". He also employed a 'paranoid' consciousness, that things are not what they seem to be ('le malin genie')---brilliant literary trope! Philosophy? No. The modern experience of pychology initiates wthis turning away from truth which is actually prior to 'ego cogito'---thus ending the medieval realist psychology.

Theologians also move away from the phenomenon in an effort to better grasp or explain how the phenomenon and experience of the candlelight is better grasped through a theology of transcendent creation (either before, or simultaneous). It does no such thing! It is not by turning to the past or the future, nor by turning outward (macro) or inward (macro) in space, that one discovers the truth. The truth does not need to be abandoned in its immediate primacy in the here and now, as it is revealed in common sense. St. Augustine seems to be on the right track here---with his 'transcende te ipsum': "Do not go outside. Return within yourself. In the inward man dwells truth. If you find that you are by nature mutable, transcend yourself!" [Noli foras ire, in teipsum redi. In interiore homine habitat veritas. Et si tuam naturam mutabilem inveneris, transcende te ipsum. De Vera Religione]

The truth of the candle's unique being is not improved through any such effort, whether scientific, theological, or cybernetic. The very truth of the candle is given entirely in the experience with the candle.

The only legitimate task for science is as follows: to ask how is it possible that things appear to be as they are and not otherwise? This is the direction we take in Realist Psychology.

Several deductions are valid.
#1 Truth appears.
#2 Truth appears now.
#3 Truth appears to a human being (evenso, there is no reason to imagine that other mammals do not grasp the truth of acorns, wet branches in a tree, etc...).
#4 Ontology: the universe is composed of 'real' things, and the universe itself is 'real'.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here we have an adequate beginning point: this day and the trees and hills and rabbits precisely as they are (as they appear to us) [this so called modern/phenomenological distinction between things being and appearing is not valid, honest or truthfull]. This chipmunk is grasped immediately as 'this chipmunk'!

We are not saying that scientific analysis fails to give more data or information about the litle rodent, it most certainly does, but in each step it moves away from the truth of seeing the chipmunk---it looks away from the truth! It discovers new realities such as atoms, molecules, quantum numbers, etc... And each of these newly grasped truths are real. But each one in its own present is revealed. One does not simultaneously grasp the apple at the same time that one grasps the apple's molecular composition. Truth can only be grasped directly by looking at real things. Only one real thing appears at a time! So the molecular account of an apple's material being is precisely that: a true account of the molecular being of an apple. But the initial apple is still precisely this: an apple. Certainly, the empirical scientist discovers new 'facts' through an analytic interrrogation of the phenomenon. Actually multiplying entities without necessity violating Ockam's law. So then instead of a chipmunk we have chipmunk=experience of (neurons, optical perception, ego) chipmunk (4 legged miniature mammal, belongs to rodent family, etc., etc.) an this goes on ad infinitum but never gets back to exactly this chipmunk!

Nor is the truth of this little beast finally re-constructed in a grand meta-narrative such as Sociobiology or Quantum Mechanics or any other type of Systematics.

Guyau's Non-Religion of the Future

M. Guyau wrote "L'Irreligion de l'avenir" 1897. This work is translated into english under the title "The Non-Religion of the Future. Some comments follow concerning Guyau's thesis.

The entire phenomenon of life cannot be discussed or conceived without a consideration of anthropology because the phenomenon of "life" is an artifact of human discussion---it is a human idea. Rabbits, squirrels and cockroaches may also have an idea of 'life' and discuss this but human beings have no knowledge or experience of this. Whatever is talked about---is talked about in human language!

That is not to say that the actual fact of life is a creation of man. Man is as secondary, derivative and dependent upon the mysterious precedent of life as any bird, star or stream. What man speaks of when he says 'life' is an impenetrable mystery that the word 'life' points to or signifies.

His pointing to, signifying or saying in no manner changes or has an actual impact upon this fundamental impenetrable mystery. This underlying fundamental mystery might equally be called 'god' or 'truth' or 'reality'---the way things actually are. (I admit there is a circularity here in this expression: "the way things actually are") ---why? Because saying 'actual' or 'real' does in no way substantiate matters under discussion! It is still words, words and more words.

Yes, man may orient himself and re-order his earthly environment for better or worse as more or less habitable as the history of technology shows, and he may even send a probe to Mars or put a man on the moon, but when considering the overwhelming vastness of the totality of the 'Unknown' which God, being, truth and reality signify, we must reasonably conclude that the sum total of man's knowledge is infinitesimal when measured against the total fact of the Unknown. Granted mankind feels more secure when it thinks that some genius or scientist has delivered a theory which casts light on the fundamental mystery of existence. But this is after all no more than gossamer spun by a spider. Just as man's knowledge is relatively speaking non-existent in the face of the enormity of the unknown, so too are the sum total of all man's actions pointles in the face of the enormity of the universe's actions.

Man's world is like an ant's nest and nothing more. An ant may grow wings and fly, man may build planes and rockets and fly as well. The ant however, does not think that by flying he will 'save the world' whereas man thinks that his acts and deeds are important and may save the world. But man is a vanity, and the ant seems to be humble---in that none of its members or collectives harbor messianic delusions. The same can be said for all species of animal, flora, biological phenomena, etc... Man alone in nature is proud of his knowledge and his deeds, and hellbent on "improving" the world, which is a codeword for technology and is delusive messianism.

The universal truth or mystery may be called 'The One', 'God', the Tao, Nothingness, Brahma, it simply makes no difference. These are merely uttered human vocalizations pointing toard what is unsayable, unknowable... A chimp may be pointing toward a Wal-Mart store and articulating sounds, and pointing his furry finger toward the building. We have no idea what the chimp intends to say, we have no translating tool to render the meaning even if he were "saying" something. So too with the consumer biped.

Man is no different. The only difference between human beings pointing toward the sky, and speaking or praying to the heavens and this chimp is that there has never been contact between an extra-terrestrial intelligence and a man. There has never been another so-called non-human intelligence which observed man gesticulating, praying or beseeching the heavens and asked: "I wonder what that creature is saying..."

Besides, man has no way of knowing if ants, birds, and flower talk. He simply concludes that they do not which is a symptom of his pride and ignorance.

The 'One' is, 'Being' is but we have no idea of what this 'One' is. Man is a self-enclosed totality pointing only to its own artifacts and the world that it weaves like the spit from a dung beetle.

Man is simply another natural thing but possessed by the idea that it is unique and significant. Whereas man is actually no different than the minerals, vegetables, and stars, man thinks it is somehow important to be man. This is simply vanity. Believe me, if the fly under the swatter could speak it would beg 'give me a chance'.

Man does noble things you say. There have been great heroes and saints. So what? The dolphins have examples of heroic acts as well as do whales.

That life exists is the fundamental datum, else there could be no speech, no word. Life underlies the universe as well, because there could be no naming of the universe without a conscious being to name it. But because man cries out 'Lord, Lord' and "Hear O Israel, God is One," people think that makes man special. Whoop de do!! Big deal. For all we know ants and ticks do the same. "Hear O tick herd, God is One."

Man is simply a natural artifact, and Nietszche is correct in saying that man is a sick animal. Perhaps if we studied hyenas and baboons we might learn that these too are proud and conceive that the Great Baboon has chosen us a His People. If so they are vain as well, and are sick. Nietszche errs in thinking that man is unique in its sickness. He has no way of knowing this unless he can talk to the apes or angels. There is no evidence that he did any such thing. Anyway, everything we say about animals is merely conjecture, a guess---nothing more. Animal rigts consists in this fact.

We can only talk about ourselves and our species. SO What! What difference does it make if we talk about ourselves? The rabbits prefer to be silent yet they prosper in health and life all the same, I might add they are more beautiful and leap better than man.

Human philosophy at the end of the day is merely that...human...and cannot get any closer to God by talking about god, than can a worm get across the freeway by talking about the other side. Human philosophy cannot get any closer to understanding cows by saying that "cows possess no language or intelligence." Man's knowing is simply a closed system of words with no guarantee to reach any farther shore of truth. Wittgenstein is correct here.

Man can say one thing that is true: we know nothing! Socrates is correct here.

Knowing nothing---what good is human existence? Is it better than insect life? No.
But it is no less than insect life! Man is simply equal to the earth and its elements. It is one in being with the material elements that compose the universe.

How then did man come to be at a disconnect with nature whereas every stream finds its way to the sea? Was it a Fall? The Forbidden Fruit? The curly red tail? The entire Judaeo-Christian Worldview depends on this thesis. Once again there is no evidence for any of this save the scriptures and PR priests and bishops have concocted to create the almighty one world religion---makes no difference if it is Moses, St. Paul, or Bill Gates. The crux is that man is a loser and our religion gives you some way out of all of this and make you a winner provided first of all you admit that you are a loser.

Then we bark up the tree the other way...New age philosophies say that man is somehow potentially God. This is either redundant, the wave is water, mistaking a part for the whole, or if a stronger claim to knowledge is made, it is ignorance. Man simply does not know if he is God, or dirt and there is no test that can solve this question either way, neither before, or today or tomorrow. So if we say man is somehow intimately linked to God, this is not based upon any knowledge or evidence. It is conclusive as saying a raindrop is part of the storm.

Faith
If you follow this seeming 'pessimism' this far, you might assert, "Well, all you are doing is underlining the need for faith." Of course, but let's put faith in perspective. Man and all of his enterprises, nation-state, glorious or despicable histories, one world market, WWW, etc...Red, White and Blue are like an enormous ship upon an ocean. Fine, this is granted. What is left unthought is the greater enormity of man's enterprises whether taken individually or collectively in its totally known aspect is but a speck before the infinity of the Unknown (or the non-infinity of the unknown---there is no way of knowing :( Not unless you can hoist a probe outside both the infinite and finite worlds :) Get real !) Grow up! The entire game is enclosed in unknowns inconceivably great or small makes no difference since there is de facto no way of knowing... Take that all of your lovers of logic and Cartesians who dream of rational organization---you pathetic engineers! Take that put it in your pipe and smoke it. &*(^%&( Every vessel no matter how grand is but a speck on the frothy blue sea.

So what is 'faith'? Seeing that all of our chips on knowledge are spent yet we are still addicted to feeling that we need security, what are we going to do? Well, how about simply trying to accept that just maybe there is an answer out there to all of this and let that feeling reside within us---this is faith. "Faith is the substance of things hoped for... the receipt of what is promised to follow" loosely paraphrasing Saul, the one slain by light on the Road to Damascus.

Let's consider this carefully now, and see if it makes any sense! If an acorn had faith it would have a vague notion that someday it might give way to becoming a great oak and generate untold acorns in a natural sequence of yearly growth. If a viral microorganism possessed faith it might have the receipt of its hope that it might devastate all human life. Now let's imagine that the acorn possesses no such faith, nor does the virus. Doesn't the acorn get to be an oak tree and doesn't the virus devastste humanity? Hence what comes to pass comes to pass by a necessity, and faith may give it a sense of prevision or 'preview of coming attractions' but the river still flows to the sea. It simply makes no difference, it is as biologists say, an 'epiphenomenon'.

So too with faith in the human heart, yes, it is an elixir, yes it gives one courage but things fall out just the same. Like the great Minnesotan poet, Bob Dylan once remarked: "So what if you grow, every tree grows...you've got no choice but to grow...You do what you can do and you do it well..." Human beings think that the manner of their death makes a difference. It does not! It is fated for every man and woman once to die. You do what you can in the face of the unknown. Yes, like every tick, like every rabbit, like every virus. You give it your best as does every babboon, pack rat or magpie... Man and women give their best because they have no choice! The only difference between man and all of the other creatures, sponges and examples of life is that man wants a pat on the back for his efforts---he thinks there is some mystical nobility in the expression: "Be all that you can be because we need you in the Army." But to the discerning eye there is simply no difference. The cult of success is the greatest delusion for any nation, especially America. This obsession with reward is the great lie hoisted by Moses and cultivated and codified by the Roman popes, purified by protestant preachers and finally erected into th American State.

If you ask me, I prefer the culture of chivalry and nobility to the dilute values of consumerist mass man, and the pathetic 'virtual' competition for gold medals, trophies, wealth and so on...which pollutes every ounce of American education. Ah, but who cares? Right, I am just a lone blogger in a frameless, nameless digital void. Hit me with all of the insults you can muster I prefer lute music while you prefer Rachmaninov---you enjoy plastic and I prefer wood, you prefer MDs while I prefer healers. Dostoevsky nailed it with the Underground Man's definition of the human being: Man is an ungrateful biped.

Then all of these layers upon layers of transparency melt away and the myth of the self is challenged at the very heart and core. Although a small provocation, the entire focus and energy of the individual ‘ego’ is madly engaged in self-defence strategies. Truth has very little to do with any of this since the world is spun like a spider’s web that this grand illusion---the world---be complete and made total. The very self we hold is revealed in this predicament taken to messianic proportion. As with a totalitarian leader, rarely do we see the naked ego at work in defensive strategy, weaving the web of coherency which is its ‘truth’. For better or worse it seems to be the fate and vocation of the philosophical writer to attempt to awaken these energies in readers.

It is as though, all at once, one is able to “leap the scaffolds” and to get a glimpse of the mother spider weaving its webs of lies---lies, and truths, insofar as this web is the nest, the environment in which the ego is nursed and cuddled.

The ego in this sense can be defined as a commitment to a worldview and a certain way of seeing all things as a world. The ego is if the gate or window through which this world must pass for better or worse. It can be likened to an ideology as well as a potential state of ‘openness’ to the way things are. It first evaluates and determines what may count as ‘real’.

The circularity of the relationship of language to framing this worldview and legislating and revealing its contents is rendered acute in the discussion concerning the nature of the ‘ego’ and the correct manner we must seek to describe its ‘true being’. Herein lies the advantage of the hermeneutic approach, which does not take language as self-evidently true no matter how purified its presentation. Language too, is not spoken of as objective reality, but represents the totality of the ego’s delusion, and the web it weaves.

Realist Psychology:The 'Depth' of Experience

The Deep

A consideration of the 'deep' in all of its significations is in order. On the literal level we see a chasm. How deep does it go? Depth as a dimension. And deep as 'profunditas', 'profound' connotes thought or mind. In any case this experience of the 'deep' is connected to the manner in which we see God. God is infinitely deep... But what can this mean? It is mystifying, like 'misting' with myth mystifying people.