Warily Approaching Reality

Should man define the limits of reality? Or should man discover the limits of reality? These questions, in a sense, encapsulate the issue of Philosophical Materialism.

If the limits of reality are arbitrarily placed, is there any reason to believe that they are accurately defined? For example is it true that reality ends with physical entities that we can see, touch, hear, taste, smell? Perhaps we say that this is true; how do we defend that declaration with data? As I have said elsewhere, if the set of material entities (M) is searched thoroughly, can proof be found that (!M) does not exist? The exercise is futile and the idea itself is absurd. Yet that is precisely what Philosophical Materialism does.

But what exactly is “!M”? If it is not tangible, how am I able to know anything at all about it? This concern is the underlying motivation – intellectual motivation, anyway – for Philosophical Materialism. If I cannot define it in material terms, it seems obvious that I cannot know anything about it. The rash conclusion is that it just does not exist.

But looking at the raw idea of “!M”, or outside and beyond the material, what do we have? Objective reality is no longer the issue; there is no way to test, repeat the test, and demonstrate the testing to others. Objectivity is out. The non-material reality, “!M”, is purely subjective. It is found through introspection, a concept which disgusts, even enrages some materialists. For them, if it is not physically demonstrable, it is imaginary, delusional, or a hoax.

For this reason, Materialists endeavor mightily to redefine certain non-material realities into their material context.

I will be writing about the idea of subjective reality in the next days, as a response to a question asked by a reader a few weeks back. To restate it in my own terms: if there is a non-material reality, what is there? What do I have to do to explore it? What can I expect? How do I avoid delusion, imagination, and error? Notice that these questions apply to material reality as well.

I have another question. What are the reasons NOT to investigate such things? Some possible answers: fear; dogma; apathy; rebellion; intellectual arrogance. I think there is no intellectually justifiable reason not to explore non-material reality.

This will be an interesting exercise, at least from my perspective.

But here is a cautionary note, as much to myself as to anyone: Openness in intellectual investigation requires a deep intellectual humility. Arrogance is unteachable, unreachable, hermetically sealed from new input. Intellectual humility is demonstrated by a self-awareness of one's own finiteness, contingent existence, and proclivity to err on the side of existing dogma. Intellectual humility is possessed of an openness, but with analytical judgement at hand.

Moreover, willful rejection of actual experience, including subjective experience, is merely rebellion - emotional blockage. Defense of prior dogma in the face of actual contradictory reality spawns false worldviews.

It also should be noted here that reality experience doesn't always happen on a human time frame: "today I will relate gravity to Maxwell's equations". Reality experiences frequently occur in "flashes of insight": epiphanies. For obvious reasons these are called "realizations", when a reality is finally grasped. Epiphanies are not to be feared, they are to be analyzed.

More to come...