Here in Western Civilization (such as it is), we define the question of reality in two parts.
- What is reality?
- How do we embrace it?
In a sense, all human sorrow is the result of getting either or both questions wrong. The bigger problem is all the ways people avoid the question in the first place.
The obvious addictive behavior of those abusing their bodies and minds with chemicals serves as the primary model for explaining just about all the less obvious avoidance schemes. Getting a handle on these avoidance patterns is a very good starting place. We can hardly get too far into that before battle breaks out over models and methods, simply because each school of thought arises from the initial question itself in defining reality. I would like to point out the complexity and raucous tone of the debate results from the fundamental flaw in Western assumptions about thinking itself.
The first principle assumes man is equal to the task. This assumption is seldom examined. We note he will most likely fail at some level, at various points, and we should expect to build on the incomplete understandings of those trying before us. Most of the world is comprised of humans who don’t share that assumption. We arrogantly question their ability to make sense of the world simply because our path has brought us only what we sought in the first place: material progress in creature comforts. That we have the means to leverage our success, or material power, is all the proof we need of superiority of our assumptions.
Have we truly gained so much just because we can bomb everyone into the Stone Age? There are plenty of folks who aren’t impressed. Take away all our worldly goods and we change completely. We take away all their material goods and they remain what they are. Our success in that sense means nothing to them. Because we cannot successfully analyze what is behind that, we simply mark it down to some form of truculence about reality and move on. “Why don’t they accept the obvious? Our way is clearly superior. Get on board or be left behind.” In other words, when we act on our fundamental assumptions and they don’t work, we ignore our own rules about evidence and logical analysis. While it would hardly bring us a complete answer, we refuse the obvious partial conclusion our hypothesis failed.
Could it be there is a valid logic outside our frame of reference? (sounds of loud scoffing in the background) Just because we have a handy set of disparaging labels for factors outside our analytical matrix does not mean we have dealt with the question. Sure, we are superior in our own estimation, but the rest of the world is not impressed. Does it occur to no one they are in the end willing to let us call it what we want and otherwise ignore us as they go on about their business? We call it “primitive” when people exercise a philosophical bent which has been around far, far longer than our rather young Western Civilization. Sure, we have roots in the old Grecian culture, but it’s current form is less than four centuries old. What we have now is pretty much the results of the Enlightenment.
In all our digging and seeking to regain the lost physical monuments to ancient cultures of the past, have we missed the point? Maybe those things were just the bare manifestation of what was there during its lifetime. Could we entertain the notion the biggest and fanciest Lost Wonders of the Ancient World simply marked those points in history when a civilization was no smarter than ours? Or would we be surprised if they could tell us this or that monument wasn’t really all that big of a deal to them? Maybe the real losses of significance were things inside people’s heads or their hearts, not the works of their hands.
I’ve read historical journals weeping over the loss of architectural wonders from ancient Rome because barbarian occupiers and peasant survivors cannibalized those wonders to build crude shelters from the bad winters which made Rome’s fall possible. We weren’t there, but I wonder if we wouldn’t have done worse in their place. Should the earth remain a thousand years from now, I suggest our presence in history will be a meaningless bump in the road. We have pretty toys, even some good artistic expression, but we hardly understand what’s outside the narrow walls of our physical existence.
We are addicted to our external, physical culture. It’s our whole existence as a civilization, our reality. Let’s take away the drugs and see what will stand on its own. We have squandered our opportunities, because Western man without his stuff is less than a troglodyte.
