SCIENCE AND RELIGION I want to expand on the last post about Mythology and Phenomenology by stressing the probably the most interesting part, which is also the most problematic, if not controversial; namely, the interplay of science and religion. Although it may seem more fitting to write science vs. religion, that kind of position is largely unproductive and dismissiveness bears few tasty fruits. And since I am of the mind that this sci-rel interplay should be positive and fruitful, cooperation is key, because nothing (of real merit) exists in vacuum. The dichotomy of science and religion is one of the central paradoxes in the modern, science-based view of the world – paradoxical in the sense that science and religion are viewed not merely as opposites, but archenemies in the perpetual whirlwind of one-upmanship and desire for global domination. While the first seeks answers from the outside, the second turns inwards and foregoes factuality for pure belief and faith. Both have drawbacks and both can inspire masses, but in one way or another their subject matter is rooted in myths – either to dispel them or to cherish them as sacred objects. The search for the meaning of life is not just a philosophical conundrum or a future doctrine in the making; it is the very life of what we do in our daily lives and the driving force of our actions … the very ink (or differently colored pixels) in these sentences being read at this very moment. As much as we need to look forward to propel our knowledge of the world and for the world, we must not lose sight of myths as the origins and blueprints of our life journey. As much as Shakespeare has been examined and discussed in debt, his canon of works still holds countless secrets to be discovered. Myths have similar power, however in a greater scheme of things still. We are constantly only one generation away from losing sight of the wisdom of old that gives us better lives in the future, if only we listen to it. Only one generation of forgetting Plato can eradicate a vital part of our conception about thinking. For this very reason it is essential to constantly reread and reevaluate the lessons of ancient progenitors of humanity. Forgetting myths is akin to forgetting cultural history, forgetting humanity itself. In light of materialism and hard capitalism of today, the last sentence sticks out like a sore thumb, but nevertheless. The sacred sphere takes the relative/subjective value of an occurrence (such as marriage) or a person (upon reaching a threshold) and places them beyond their sacrality and truth in themselves into the objective sacredness (thus marriage gets a significant meaning). Marriage even begins to play a vital role in our profane existence, as a modern reinterpretation and reapplication through a non-religious hermeneutic cycle of worth and value. Love in the marriage reflects the love of God and the ultimate reality, playing upon one of the golden rules that is not just central to all religions, but is the basis for the conglomerate that is the social paradigm of humanity. Myth is a mosaic of views and appropriate theories as methodological pluralism, reflecting the multitude of subjective views that make up the collective objective picture of the world. The question of subjectivity and objective reality may be impossible to answer (paradoxically to everyone’s liking). While postmodernism denies objectivity in itself, as we are all mere subjective imprints of the greater social being that we create, ancient traditions like Daoism refer to exactly this interplay of internal subjectivity and external objectivity; the world as such is made of both and flows from the sacred to the profane and back in an endless cycle of life (the aggrandized hermeneutic cycle of sorts). In terms of theory and academic research, methodological pluralism occupies a similarly complex, “objective” approach to understanding art in general. Albeit in this case, the stigma is not against a narrow view on a particular theory, but a constant search for better understanding and consequent application of theory. While the search for absolutism in art can be an insurmountable obstacle, the desire and willingness to understand different point of view of a given work is crucial to getting that artistic epiphany and seeing the proverbial picture in its truest meaning, i.e. its most objective light. Humans have a predisposition towards particular subjects that stem directly from one’s own self and will therefore always naturally turn towards the direction that personally suits them; yet, it is the awareness of the rest of the paths (theories) that creates contrast and keeps the subjective personal reality in check with the socially objective one(s). This is the dichotomy of religion vs. science, of knowing the rules before breaking them and of understanding the world of myth and comics before managing any sort of valid discussion about either of them. Objectivity may in fact be attainable, but its clairvoyance and perditious path is akin to Siddhartha Gautama’s struggle to reach nirvana. Returning back to the topic at hand, semantically, we distinguish god from God by mere capitalization, yet its function cannot be measured in ink. Similarly, if everyone has its own life and we call this the subjective view. We have the objective perception of the world as well, which is predominantly rooted in factuality, the scientific view and the nature of things in themselves. But even this can be labeled as relative or at least a temporal truth, until a better, more honest reality is determined … and science essentially constantly one-ups itself to the point that it deconstructs its old “factual truths”. In such a way, the conception of God may be akin to the conception of Objectivity, the reality beyond (human grasp of) reality, the Brahman, the Dao, Heidegger’s Being or Kantian Sublime. Obvious parallels can be further drawn towards Kant’s perceptions of being and questioning whether our sense can in fact provide an accurate view of what there is … or rather Is … I mean IS. In this case, the verb view cannot be overused, since the majority of our internal and external conceptions are based on sight. Whether or not this leads to insight is another matter, but as much as great minds of the past and present have already uncovered, the fact (still) remains that we have merely began to scratch the surface of the greater truths of Being. Objective value may be taken as the level of excellence. Thinking of canonical works, their objective position as “the best” goes beyond one’s perception of actually understanding them. Picasso’s and Dali’s works excel on many levels, yet most people nevertheless find their obscure worldviews at least somewhat disturbing, the same way as Shakespeare’s richness of language can easily overwhelm his (especially non-traditional) readers. All the creators of myth and art need to be taken in a larger sense and observed as complexly as possible: for the intrinsic values of their works themselves as well as the(ir) contribution to the human race. This observance places the notion of objectivity further under scrutiny; I propose the term SUBJECTIVE OBJECTIVITY, which makes best use of limited means, nowadays especially though science, coming as close to objective perception as we possibly can without being able to uncover the true essence of theoretically timeless Being, which is beyond human limits that our more than obvious temporal existence is plagued with. Humanity as such is drenched in finality and can only strive to come close to Objectivity and God. Myths, through their distorted facts about life and insightful messages about our existence, in a way offer a passageway to higher thinking and higher functions that we need to strive towards, if we want to continue the upward trend and prove the progressive evolution principle. Religious truth is the search in the realm of aspiration. We cannot be sure, if the convergence with God takes place, so we need faith to carry the mantle of greater truth until we reach it ourselves. Religious truth becomes our perennial object of aspiration, parallel to the scientific final truth about nature. Pragmatically, the truly important things in life can only be aspired towards, since they have value in themselves. This temporal, physical existence does not allow for greater certainty as we desire it (even science is based on presumption and acceptance of the fact that reality in fact exists) – especially due to the current materialistically-spoiled and answer-driven culture, where value is more and more measured by what can immediately and without a shadow of a doubt be placed on the plate of mindless consumption. The search for Truth is somewhat paradoxically an aspiration for betterment that may not yield any results (in this life, even for the one searching), but one’s legacy may not only teach, but open the eyes of the generations to come (i.e. Jesus, Galileo). Philosophy and religion may deal with extremely difficult metaphysical matters that propose more question than they give answers to, yet their unquenching appetite for knowledge and wisdom have always propelled human understanding of the self and the universe forward (obviously equally applies to science pes se). Without “thinking” as such, there would be no progression, no liberal or conservative movements, no science and the words on this digital page would be not merely nonexistent, but beyond the scope of even thinking about words. This is a direct correlation to the mythic path, which is supposed to be paved with obstacles; the final revelation is merely the icing on the cake, the final layer without which the cake of life is incomplete nonetheless. The future Buddha's final life before awakening was in fact the hardest of all, as the object of his awakening was close as hand like Tantalus was (although from an entirely different perception) endlessly close to nourishment, yet tantalizingly (pun intended) beyond normal conception … except Siddhartha Gautama’s progressed state. Complete attainment is not in the realm of religion or philosophy, for it is the subject of scientific research. It presupposes an important, sublime, even dangerous path for the mind to traverse and uphold, since it may in fact deconstruct perception of being for most (religious) people in this world. If God, Love (agape, the unconditional love), Truth or Objectivity is the goal of our search, it is perplexingly dangerous (since complete attainment dissolves all future human endeavors and annuls progression that we strive towards), but it paradoxically must remain the fundamental precept of everything that we do, because that is one of the building blocks of human nature. If we want to pursue the case of this mosaic of truth, myth needs to (re)take center stage and remain the marker for inquiry and discovery. The obvious critique of this seemingly overpresumptuous cadence of myth can be traced back to Aristotle, whose metaphysics differentiated between myth and philosophy, the latter being akin to science. Myths can equally be seen as the primordial “scientific” explanations about the cosmos and consequently about humanity and the human psyche. However, the main reason why myth(ology) takes such high importance in my research is its unparalleled prominence as the predecessor of artistic, scientific, religious, historic and philosophic thought of the present and future generations. In other words, if philosophy is the love of wisdom, myth is the philosophy before philosophy, whose love transcends towards religious Love and its wisdom stirs the eternal human unconscious even through the obscure and unfactual means myth takes such delight in. Science and religion are rooted in all of that majestic mumbo-jumbo. I dunno how much sense it makes to you, but it puts things in perspective a bit more and connects a few more dots, so I’m happy with that. Archives November 2017
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Author
For reasons of extreme prejudice, the author of this blog wishes to remain anonymous … Archives
November 2017
Categories |