Many experiences and perceptions are stored within ones sub-conscious mind. It may be both unnecessary and inconvenient to integrate these elements into the conscious mind. Cultural standards limit and define much of this conscious activity. Violations of these standards can produce cognitive dissonance if one attempts to try to integrate some event into a framework that cannot inherently contain that event. My own frustration with cognitive dissonance has been the motivation to propose or (create?) a model that is able to contain and explain a wider variety of events and experiences. I do appreciate any comments, more so if they stick to the concepts being discussed, and please, neither your own cognitive dissonance or your keyboard give you the licence to be rude.

The varied expressions and reflections of writers have always impressed and inspired me. Still we must be clear, the imagination betrays both profundity and ignorance. While I enjoy many subjects, I am often troubled by the lack of an overarching perspective.

Back in high school my science teacher said that the time between the first presentation in scientific journals of a given scientific idea, and its public acceptance was about fifty years. This led me to think that understanding of reality was driven by social rather than rational considerations. We seem stuck by our need to graft fresh ideas onto older models, so as to gain more credibility. The compromised idea is then as likely to enforce the conventional thought, rather than overturning it. The truly brilliant largely do their work outside of and without the validation or crutch of social convention. No, Einstein and Darwin do not make the grade. People like Tesla, Reichenbach, Reich, and Naessens will continue to be ignored as long as the stature of mildly intelligent people is measured by some popularity contest. One big “reality” show. Whoop –ee.

Human beings have a unique ability to change the nature of their consciousness, yet this seldom happens, perhaps because of the existential terror involved with having to confront ones ignorance. For most, psychic stability is more important than an open and dynamic relationship to reality. Some will even assert that reality is, as I perceive it. Oh really? Did the sun and stars revolve around the Earth back when that was the common perception? And yes, the Pope does shit in the backwoods of our minds.

A system for understanding reality that provides both psychic stability and an open relationship to future possibilities must eventually become a welcome element within the human project. Science, with its notion of provisional truth and experimental method has been a step in the right direction. Yet, within science there is no provision for knowledge and/or elements of reality that may exist outside the boundary conditions of current models. This illustrates how science is also a social project that limits its rationality to material that falls within the boundary conditions of the existing puzzle, and thereby produces resistance to the questioning of its foundational statements.

Science as a central cultural element has only a three or four century history. We maintain many original foundational statements, as having Absolute Truth value, such as the Inverse Square Law of Gravitation, or that the spiritual has no extension in time and space. Also why do we stand so stiff necked behind Darwin? The ego perhaps? Burnished by the notion that we exist at the pinnacle of evolutionary development? Why do we consider that these original shots in the dark are such a sure bet to express Absolute Truth? If examples of prior developed civilizations were admitted to, the authority of our current experts might come into question. To consider that there other pinnacles lost or yet to be reached is not to denigrate where we currently find ourselves. The collapse of the roof may not be so bad if it lets us then see the sky.

It is a basic rule in philosophy that a consequent cannot prove an antecedent. The result is that foundation strength will largely determine the life of the building. It makes sense to plan for our next ‘foundation’ while our current ‘building’ is still standing. Therefore, a system of understanding that contains elements that redefine certain words and concepts may be worthy of consideration. New systems will likely challenge both faith and our concepts of rationality. At this point in the human project we must be brave so as to deepen and put flesh on the skeleton of our conceptual structures. My sense is that the greatest limitation of current foundation structures lies in their applications being limited to the gross physical aspect of existence.

Our modern structures are built on the hard dualism of Descartes and circumstances. Their came a time (17th century) when it was deemed prudent to establish a division of authority. This division has led to better analytical tools for use in the various sub-specialties. While the declaration that the physical and the spiritual are fundamentally different encouraged excellent progress within the physical sciences, we are wrong if we consider this duality to be an Absolute Truth.

Consider the wave-particle paradox. It may be the case that any particle is the agglutination of sub-particles that exhibit the proper combination of velocity, vector, and a cyclical balance between electro-magnetic attraction and static repulsion characteristics. It is reasonable to assert that particles may exist, that are even orders of magnitude smaller than the resolution powers of current instruments. These particles would still be physical yet so small that they may be driven by resonance relationships and may be kin to consciousness itself.

How do we relate to, and bring material from out of the ineffable? We have “visions”, and then we interpret the vision into prosaic terms so that others may understand it. This social compact (or inevitability) feeds back into the questions that we ask of the ineffable. Our knowledge is not the recognition of a pre-existing ideal (Plato); our knowledge is not a new discovery (sophists). Our knowledge represents answers that are arrived at, always within the terms of the questions asked (Aristotle).

Has the era of dualism served its function and are we ready to move towards new sets of questions? Only when good people admit to the error of their acceptance of relative truth as being Absolute Truth, will we as a society advance to a stage where our perceptions of reality and reality itself will exist within a more dynamic and healthy relationship.