1. Respect as Foundation
2. The Hallmark of Respect is Dialogue
3. The True Significance of Art
4. A Hierarchy of Believing
5. A Sense of Personal Sovereignty
6. The Five Questions of Philosophy
7. The Critical Errors of Science
It is hard to see examples of true respect these days. Do you see examples of people being respectful to each other on TV or in the movies? Are husbands and wives respectful to each other in the checkout line? Are students learning respect by watching their teachers and parents? When was the last time you felt your ideas, actions, or accomplishments were respected by someone? And of all the people you know, who do you truly respect? Politicians? School board members? It seems to me that respect is almost a lost art, and the situation is getting worse. Just look at how people drive.
Wanting to foster more respect in the world around me, I asked myself a simple question:
Under what circumstances does a feeling of respect arise in a person?
The first answer that came to me was that when someone is bigger than you are, when they have power over you, when they can flat out kill you, you will not be rude to such a person. You will be respectful, at least in manner. There is even a bumper sticker reflecting this sentiment that says, An Armed Society is a Polite Society. Some people say that when politeness is coerced, it is not true respect. Granted, this is the most primitive form of respect. The feeling of respect is one-sided and is based in fear.
The second answer I came up with was that you can have a feeling of respect for someone else’s achievements. This type of respect requires that you know enough in your own right to appreciate what someone else has accomplished. For example, a third-year fine arts student can look at a masterpiece and say, my God, how did the artist do that? In contrast, if I look at a masterpiece, all I can do is tell you whether I like it or not. I do not know enough to fully appreciate what I see. This second type of respect involves a measure of self-cultivation as well as a sufficient amount of general life experience.
For the longest time these two answers were all I could come up with, but I felt that this wasn’t the whole picture. It took about a year to realize the third answer, and here it is: if you accept the hypothesis that there is something of Divine Nature in all human beings, then we all deserve far more respect than we have ever experienced, no matter what the circumstances of our lives may be.
Unfortunately, most people do not take this hypothesis seriously enough to use it as a basis for action in the so-called real world. After all, it is hard to see Divine Nature in someone when they are tossing a cigarette butt out the window of their car. It is even more difficult to see Divine Nature within yourself. Why, then, am I willing to entertain such a magnificent but potentially misguided hypothesis when people offer so little evidence for it? Because I think in terms of the basic human potential, in which we all share.
As a skeptic, I am clear about the difference between knowing something and believing it. I cannot prove logically that Divine Nature exists, let alone that it resides in each of us. However, I am willing to give people the benefit of the doubt. Why? First, because within myself it feels good to do so, it feels consistent with who I am. Second, all humans contain at least the potential for showing compassion, forgiveness, mercy, generosity, selflessness, and so on. When people witness deeds based on these attributes, are they not inspired? There is something in the human heart which resonates with such deeds and the human decency on which they are based. I call it Divine Nature. It connects us with each other and with all that is. With respect, it grows. With disrespect, it withers.
My logic here is a heart-felt logic. If I am willing to accept the hypothesis of Divine Nature, then the idea of universal respect makes very good sense. This idea of universal respect, based on an inherent Divine Nature, has become a cornerstone in my thinking.
———————
When I was a young man, I met a gentleman from India and asked him a little about his country and his culture. I found it fascinating how the British Empire had made such deep inroads into Indian culture with regard to language, government, education, etc. Most educated Indians speak fluent English. The British have long since left India, but the mark of the empire remains on India's public institutions. Knowing that India has a long and spiritually rich culture of its own, I naively asked, "And what did the British learn from their contact with India?" This gentleman from India looked at me very sharply and said something I found shocking: "Absolutely nothing." Then, continuing his intense gaze, and speaking very quietly and deliberately, he gave me something profound that I now share with you. He said:
People never listen to you unless you have something they want.
The British Empire already had the wealth and the power, and that was all they wanted. The conversation between these two cultures was a one-way affair.
True dialogue is remarkably rare. For true dialogue to take place, both participants must be willing to really listen to each other. Listening requires respect. With fear-based respect, there is an inherent power imbalance. With the respect of appreciation, there is a master-student relationship. The only time true dialogue can take place is when both parties acknowledge the other person’s perspective as being perfectly legitimate. It is very difficult to grant someone this kind of consideration. Honoring someone's perspective as legitimate often means you may have to alter some of your cherished beliefs about reality. Listening to someone means letting go of your own perspective for a moment.
The natural impulse is to defend your own position. But think: does anyone have perfect knowledge? No. We each have a limited view, an incomplete understanding. Most of us think very highly of our own understandings. You may think your view is more accurate, more comprehensive, more carefully thought out than someone else’s. While you may have good grounds for your high opinion of your own viewpoint, if you want to engage in dialogue with someone, it is important to remember that even your viewpoint is less than omniscient, and that the other person’s awareness, however limited, includes things you may not have thought of yet. Engaging in dialogue means being humble enough before the limitations of your own knowledge to make allowance for someone else’s reality. When it comes to the art of being human, this kind of humility is an advanced skill.
With universal respect, this kind of humility makes good sense. Do we not lay flower petals on the path where the Buddha walks? Do we not carry a cross at Easter? Do we not memorize the Koran? We are so hungry for real truth that when we believe we have found it, we latch onto it with great devotion.
I happen to have a truth to offer you. It is nothing less than the song of my heart. I cannot claim to know "reality" but I can offer the authentic witness of my life experience. And if you speak to me with the same kind of sincerity, I will not only listen, I’ll make room in my world-view for your truth. In true dialogue, both give, both receive, and both rise to a broader view.
But if you try to tell me what I should believe, if you are simply trying to win the argument and get your way, if you have answers but no questions, if you speech is anything less than sincere, don’t waste your breath. I have no time for one-way streets. I can tell by your conversational style whether or not you have the capacity for true dialogue.
Conversations that are not based in respect are not dialogue. One-sided conversations are fundamentally adversarial. Being interrupted is the first tell-tale sign of disrespect. Someone trying to put words in your mouth is another sign. Refusing to listen is a clear sign of disdain. A small degree of disdain is perceived as conversational rudeness. A greater degree of disdain may consist of the willingness to rob, cheat, deceive, or otherwise abuse someone. At the ultimate level, disdain is the willingness to destroy life for personal gain. The difference from one level of disdain the next is really only a matter of degree.
This is what I mean when I say dialogue is the hallmark of respect. The manner in which one engages in dialogue is a powerful discriminator. You can use dialogue to judge the nature of human interactions. The people who are willing to engage in respectful dialogue are treasures. Together you can learn. Those who are disrespectful in their conversational style are already trampling your garden. If the idea of universal respect is correct, nobody has a right to impose their will on another, be it to a small degree or a large one. Disrespect is the root of injustice. You can choose not to cooperate with it.
———————
I really didn’t understand the significance of art until my 49th year when I had a unique and important experience: I attended a Native American Sundance Ceremony. While the external part of this experience was very interesting and rewarding, it was the internal aspect of this experience that rocked my world view into a new shape. On returning from the Sundance, it was not enough to have the memory living inside of me. I felt an urgent need to see a token of my inner experience in the external, everyday, so-called "real world." To answer this need, I created a pattern that represented my experience, designed and built a small loom, and executed that pattern in beadwork. The piece contains about 1,500 beads. Beadwork is not something I had ever imagined doing, and I’ve done very little of it since. The art form itself was not and is not a primary interest. For reasons I can’t articulate, however, it was terribly important for me to create this little item. It took months.
Words are funny, and the word “art” is no exception. My experience with school art programs didn’t give me much of a definition. The art teachers would demonstrate how to use water colors, for example, then hand out the materials and turn us loose. Go forth and make art (in 35 minutes, then clean up the mess). The process of making art didn’t connect with me at all. In school the teaching of art focused on exposing the students to various media, and discovering and encouraging natural talent. Seeming to have none, I trudged my way through the exercises and assignments to a solid C minus. I see now that talent really wasn’t the issue (though it doesn’t hurt to have some).
Over the years my understanding of the term “art” has come to include a variety of distinct ideas, each of which should be known by some other, lesser word. Art can be a pleasing pattern. Art can be anything that is intellectually or technically clever. Art is something that evokes a response. Art pleases or challenges the aesthetic sensibilities. Art is provocative. Art is the subject matter of art critics. Do anything with a sufficient degree of technical skill, and what you do can be regarded as an art. Do anything and call it art, and art critics will give it attention. Intuitively I knew there was more to it, but until Sundance my definition of art didn’t go much further than these ideas.
Today I define art as follows:
Art is the external expression or representation of an internal reality.
Perhaps my school teachers could have helped me understand what it meant to be an artist if they had asked me the questions that I now submit to you:
If you have some answers to these delicious, disturbing questions, it is proof that you possess an inner reality. We are so much more than traces of memory. The best parts of living are within us.
My new definition of poverty, by the way, is not having answers to these questions.
———————
Right now, wherever you are, look up from these words and notice all the things you can see in your immediate vicinity. It all looks pretty substantial, doesn't it. There can be no denying the existence of the water bottle or coffee cup on your desk if it is part of your direct, sensory experience. Your mind is satisfied that the things you can see and touch are real and true beyond any question. It is as if you have an unfettered view of reality, right there before your eyes.
I, however, am slightly colorblind. Getting ready for school one morning, I asked my little sister if the two socks I held up matched. She said yes (the little dickens). To the rest of my classmates, my socks didn't match at all. To me they did. Who was right? Ooops. There weren't supposed to be any questions about reality.
You can try to answer the question by saying that people whose eyes are equipped with a greater sensitivity to color information have a "better" or "clearer" view of reality than people like me, who cannot select a purple crayon by looking at the color of the tips sticking out of the box of Crayolas.
However, if you make the argument that people with better vision have a better view of reality, you have to take it to the next step and say that bees have a better view of reality than humans do because bees can see ultraviolet colors in flowers that are invisible to even the best of human eyes.
Most people never question their own basic sensory experience. However, if you examine how the senses operate, it becomes clear that the senses are actually distorting the image in an effort to make the image more useful. For example, the human eye is wired to enhance our ability to detect the edge of a physical object. To prove this, focus on the middle of a white square in the image below. Enhanced edge perception gives rise to the impression of light patches where the black lines intersect. The actuality is that the places where black and white are adjacent to each other are made darker by this visual processing that takes place in the eye. At the intersections, black is adjacent only to black, so there is no enhancement. The result is that there appears to be a slightly lighter shade of black where the lines cross. This visual processing makes it easier to distinguish one object in our field of view from another. It enhances our ability to see the edge or outline of the object.
Every sense organ has its peculiarities. Every creature has its own sensory apparatus by which it is able to detect the information it needs from its environment. The ability to see ultraviolet colors in flowers is something the bee's eye has adapted to. The human eye has gone down a different evolutionary path.
The real question is this: when we are looking at the world around us, do we have an unfettered view of reality, or are we looking at the impressions given to us by our senses?
The point of all this is not to try to answer the question, but to suggest that we can approach the issue of knowledge with a little humility by understanding that the human cognitive apparatus has its limitations.
The number of things I know to be facts beyond any doubt is relatively small. My mind is very satisfied when I grasp the logic of a geometric proof, for example. In mathematics, the sense of being in the presence of "Truth" is exquisite. Mathematical knowledge is a sense of knowing of the highest order.
I also know there is a water bottle on my desk. I reach out, pick it up, drink from it, and thanks to good hydration, I live another day. The reinforcement given to the idea that the water bottle is a real thing in my world is enormous. Operationally speaking, in terms of my continuing to be alive, the water bottle is not something I need to question. I am satisfied that it is a fact in the scope of my personal experience. At the same time, I am willing to make allowance for the limitations of my sensory apparatus and say that what I am perceiving is the impression of the bottle given to me by my senses. Without the senses responding to the light waves and physical contact, I would have no knowledge of the water bottle. Appreciating the fact that my senses are imperfect allows me to realize that my sense of knowing the water bottle is not quite as pure as the sense of knowing I attained in geometry class.
Here we come to a very important distinction: there is a difference between knowing something is true, and believing something is true. When it comes right down to it, it is extremely difficult to really know what is true and what is not. I feel as if I know the earth is round. While I have never personally verified that, the evidence available to me is quite convincing. Is the person I voted for in the last election sincere in his promise to look out for my interests? Now that is a difficult question to answer. From an operational (practical) standpoint, I voted for him, which means I gave him the benefit of the doubt in hopes he would prove sincere. These two examples show that not all beliefs in one's head are held with the same degree of conviction.
In the absence of direct proof, we come to believe things based on the evidence that supports that belief. Sometimes the evidence is very good, as is the case for believing the earth is round. Sometimes the evidence is scant, but we choose believe anyway in hopes that we are right. Knowing who you are means knowing what you believe. Being clear about your beliefs means you can be clear in your actions. As a way to be clear about my beliefs, I take a second look and try to see how those beliefs came into my mind in the first place. Are they based on something I can personally verify, or are they based on hearsay? As a way to gage the quality, validity, or strength of my beliefs, I have come up with what I call the hierarchy of believing. All my beliefs can be classified as follows:
Beliefs are very important. Beliefs are the foundation. Beliefs are the basis for the actions we choose to take in living our lives. In saying that our senses are limited and that our beliefs are valid only to a degree, it may seem like I am trying to plant seeds of doubt not only for beliefs, but for the very nature of mind. If we can't know anything for certain, how can we take any action? The arguments in this essay seem to lead toward paralysis.
Not so. Not at all. The set of understandings presented here actually leads to liberation.
First, if we recognize that even direct sensory experience has its limitations, and that beliefs are largely a matter of personal choice, then we can hold knowledge in one hand and humility in the other. If I am willing to recognize that even my firmest knowledge and beliefs are nothing more than good hypotheses, then I may loosen my grip on my own beliefs long enough to give your beliefs some serious consideration. People who are humble in the face of the limits of their own knowledge can learn from each other. People who already know the answer never listen. People who are convinced they know the one and only truth stifle their own growth as well as the growth of those around them.
Second, if you can see which of your beliefs are backed by personal experience and which are based on what amounts to hearsay, then you can weed the garden and sort things out. Know the difference between knowing and believing. See that some beliefs are well founded, and some are the myths handed to us by our culture. Hold fast to what you like, and reconsider the rest. Thinking will be clearer, and action will be more authentic.
Third, the hierarchy of believing opens new doors to actions based on a spectrum of belief states. Understanding that the best I will ever achieve is a limited view of truth gives me permission to hold the beliefs of my choosing, even if they are mere speculation. My world is all the richer because my beliefs make allowance for the existence of a little magic, for example. Why not? I don't know enough to say there is no such thing as magic. What I do know is that it pleases me to make allowance for the possibility of a little magic in life, especially after so many years buying into the assumption that magic is impossible.
In contrast, consider global warming. Scientists deal in proven facts. Scientists say there is a lot of evidence that global warming is not only a real phenomenon, but that human activities such as driving, industry, farming, deforestation, etc., are significant contributing factors if not the actual cause. Talk about paralysis. Nobody is willing to take any significant action on global warming because a few scientists can be found who say it hasn't been proven to their satisfaction that there is anything we humans can do about global warming. From the scientific perspective, they make a valid point. However, the kind of proof that scientists require is at the highest levels in the hierarchy of believing. I, however, am satisfied that global warming is probably true, and human activity probably contributes. I am willing to believe at the level of "probably true" in the hierarchy and to act on my beliefs. It seems to me that the decent human being would say, if there is any chance that human activity is harming the global climate, then we shouldn't we err on the side of caution? Shouldn't we do everything in our power to minimize the potential for harm?
In summary, the hierarchy of believing gives me permission to really look at my beliefs and how I came to hold them. It tells me I am the only person who can judge the quality, validity, and strength of my beliefs. It gives me permission to look beyond true and false to a world where I can choose to believe something simply because it is a reflection of who I am. At the same time my beliefs take nothing away from yours. I honor your right to believe as you will. The hierarchy of believing gives us both permission to live by the faith systems of our choosing. Is there anything more real, free, and alive than this? Being humble before the limits of one's own knowledge is a very fine thing, indeed.
———————
In our semantic network, the idea of sovereignty typically applies to countries or nations. A sovereign nation is politically self-contained. The nation establishes its own laws and defends its own boundaries. Any outside power that attempts to meddle in the affairs of a sovereign nation does so at its own peril.
The ruler of a sovereign nation is the highest political authority. A ruling king, for example, is even referred to as The Sovereign. Within his domain, there is no one who tells the king what to do. He is without peer. His only peer in all the world is the king of another sovereign nation. When negotiating trade agreements, for example, two kings are equals. At the negotiating table, one king cannot force the other king's hand. For an agreement to be made, both kings must grant their consent to the terms of the agreement.
In our society, there is almost nothing telling you that the idea of sovereignty actually applies to individuals as well. All of our institutions—the family, the education system, the government, the churches, and the corporations—are hierarchical in nature. They all assign us a place. They all tell us what to do. We are habituated to the idea of being subordinate to someone else since the day we are born. It is sad, but most people never realize that they possess an inherent sovereignty.
The fact is, in the domain of your life, thou art the one and only king.
Having said that, I can see where the religiously minded would be the first to resist this idea. They would say, God or Jesus is the only King. I would say to them, do you not bend the knee voluntarily? Do you not consent to your beliefs? God does not force your hand, He treats you as a peer. Most people are afraid to see what this implies, thanks to the influence of almost everything around us.
Perhaps the idea of sovereignty as it applies to individuals can be better understood in terms of nature. Every creature born on the planet is given an inherent nature thanks to its genetic makeup. A frog has frog nature. In the conduct of its life, a frog does froggish things. Froggish nature is not a fixed thing, but a range of possibilities. Within the scope of its froggish nature, a frog can be influenced by experience. Even a frog can be trained to perform circus tricks that it would never do in a natural environment. Nonetheless, the frog cannot be trained to the point where it loses its froggish nature and becomes, say, a dog. In its environment, the frog will begin with its genetic heritage as a starting point. Its froggish nature will then be molded to some degree by its experience. In the end, no matter how much of an influence the environment exerts, a frog will never escape the fact that it is a frog. It will always have frog nature.
Since a frog's nature is inherent to being a frog, it is absurd to think that there is any free will involved in how frog nature comes to be expressed in the course of a frog's life. It is even more absurd to explicitly point out that a frog has every right to be a frog and to express its frog nature as best it can, given the opportunities afforded by its environment.
Nobody ever questions a frog's right to be a frog. Yet almost everybody in your life will question your right to be you, telling you all the time what you should think, do, and believe. Very few will encourage you to find and follow your own true nature. When someone does recommend being true to your own nature, our society gives us neither the permission nor the resources to make use of that advice. Those who do decide to take the high road of discovering one's own nature usually do so without the blessing of the people around them. Self discovery can be a lonely path.
We can see another example of how nature is expressed by looking at domesticated dogs. There is no doubt that dogs have a recognizable dog nature. Dogs bark, growl, scratch, lick, chase cats, and so on. They do not purr. They do not hibernate. They cannot be trained to do either of those things. The different breeds of dogs have different traits. Some breeds are large, and some small. Some have long hair, and some have short hair. Some are aggressive, and some are friendly. In all cases, they never leave the confines of recognizable dog nature. Every individual dog has its basic personality. An individual dog can be trained, either by human coaching or by the influence of experience, to be more or less aggressive, more or less timid, more or less alert, etc. How the dog's inherent nature is actually expressed in the world can be modified to a degree. Regardless, its basic nature always remains recognizably doggish.
Of course, human nature is more complex and very difficult to define. One way to approach the issue is in terms of the human potential. When a child is born, it is given a potential for physical growth. If it is given the right nutrition at the right times in its development, and given the right physical stimulation, the child will grow into a healthy adult. But lacking proper nutrition and exercise, some aspect of its physical growth will not reach its full potential.
We can point to people with exceptional physical development, such our various professional athletes. It is interesting to note that great achievement in one area may give rise to a shortcoming in another area. For example, an individual who trains to maximize his or her development as a body builder may not have fully developed his or her potential for running sprints. So it is that even in the area of physical development, which is relatively straightforward and universal, the idea of full development of one's potential is problematic. Nonetheless, I can imagine someone whose development is balanced with regard to strength, speed, agility, flexibility, stamina, gracefulness, timing, and hand-eye coordination. If I'm not mistaken, the Ancient Greeks admired this idea of being balanced and well-rounded. I believe similar lines of thinking can be applied to the non-physical dimensions of being human: the emotional, mental, and spiritual dimensions. A human being begins as a set of possibilities, and although that set of possibilities may be large, each item in the set is recognizably human.
In my opinion, most people are not aware of what the full, rich, balanced expression of the human potential might look like in these non-physical areas. There are no Ancient Greek statues of full emotional, mental, and spiritual development that we can point to. How would you recognize when someone has reached their full emotional potential in a balanced and well-rounded fashion? Our culture doesn't seem to provide us with any good models. We don't even have an inventory of what the possibilities are, as we do with athletes (sprinting, distance running, and power lifting are included in the inventory of the physical possibilities for human beings). What we have instead are layer upon layer of "shoulds." Marriage should be like this image in the story books. If you achieve personal wealth and high status, you should be happy. If you follow this curriculum in school, you should get a good job. There are lots of shoulds in our culture, and I haven't found them very helpful.
So how does one go about discovering one's own true nature? Most people are too busy to even ask such a question, and I don't really have a simple answer. I'm still in the process of learning how to discover my own true nature. My Tai Chi teacher offered the following as a starting point, and it seems to have some merit. During a relaxation exercise, he would have us think of each area of our bodies beginning with our scalps and working down. At each location the goal was to notice any physical tension, and then let go of it. When released, the energy of holding the tension becomes available for other things. Then he would take us into our emotional worlds and do the same thing: notice any tension, and then let go of it. Finally he would say, "And when you have let go of everything you can possibly let go of, all that is left is the real you." I have found this to be a useful approach. When the tensions have been released, you can begin to listen within yourself. In fact, it is fairly common for teachers of oriental martial and healing arts to ask their students during training, "How do you feel?" There are no shoulds, just look inside and notice what is there.
The ability to notice how you feel takes us back to the idea of sovereignty. Nobody can tell you how you feel–only you can know that. By the same token, nobody has a right to tell you what you believe. Each individual has to make their own determination of what is true and real, and what is not, as best they can. Finally, you decide, ultimately, what you will and will not do. Are you not in control of your hand and feet? Are not your mind and heart yours to govern (if you can)?
By advocating the idea of personal sovereignty, I am not encouraging people to suddenly become completely self indulgent, doing whatever they want every minute of the day. Nor am I advocating that people ignore the suggestions and opinions of friends, family, teachers, and others. I am advocating that people investigate their own natures and live their lives accordingly to the best of their ability. An important component of my position is the hypothesis, stated previously, that we humans have something of Divine Nature within us. Animal nature, of course, is present as well. The whole package has to be honored, because in the end, the force of nature will not, can not, be denied. The animal nature within each of us is not a bad thing, especially when balanced with the Divine Nature. (Interesting how this came back to the Ancient Greek ideal of balanced development.)
Discovering and expressing your true nature is the process of learning to be yourself without the distortion of judgements laid upon you by others. Being able to accept yourself as you are, and not as someone thinks you should be, is a big step towards being human. Being human is a special thing. We speak of man's inhumanity to man. If inhumanity is the opposite of being human, think what being human means. It is my belief that humans are, by nature, as exquisite as the stars. When critics try to tell you otherwise, a sense of personal sovereignty may help you hold your own.
Given that we are highly social animals, there are times when the sense of personal sovereignty must be balanced with a sense of community. Sometimes you cannot have your way. Sometimes it is necessary, and to everyone's benefit, to subordinate one's self to a higher authority. If you subordinate yourself voluntarily, you can remain conscious of your sense of personal sovereignty. This is called "consent of the governed." Consent of the governed is a key element in human society. Many a kingdom has fallen victim to the mob when a ruler goes beyond what the people are willing to bear. At this point, the consent of the governed is withdrawn, and the leader has no true power.
In contrast, if you are being subordinated against your will, that is a form of slavery. Coercion can be very subtle, and slavery can be a matter of degree. Being subordinated against your will is humiliating. The pain of this humiliation is poison to the soul. Worst of all is when a person becomes so habituated to a subordinate role that the very idea one can have a sense of personal sovereignty never even occurs to them. I see this as being beyond the pain of involuntary subordination; I see this as being numb to the knowledge of who you are.
The significance of a sense of personal sovereignty is this:
All human beings, and in fact, all living things, share this fundamental entitlement to be themselves, to follow their natures. Did God not create our natures in the first place? In my opinion, if you live in accordance with your true nature, the good and the bad, you stand a chance of developing the potential given to you at birth, the potential to become a human being in the finest sense.
Life is your opportunity to write your name on the canvass of eternity. Write big.
———————
Beliefs are so important. If you believe divorce is a sin, you will endure much pain and make many sacrifices to keep a bad marriage going. If you believe God Himself said it is good to kill unbelievers and to be a martyr, then it may seem like an act of heroic devotion to fly a commercial jetliner into the World Trade Center. As you believe, so you will act. If you believe something strongly, you will take strong actions in the name of your belief.
Recognizing that beliefs influence our actions is only the first and most obvious level of understanding. What is even more profound is the fact that beliefs influence how we see the world in the first place. The person who believes in angels may interpret a given experience as angelic intervention, whereas someone who believes in scientific materialism would dismiss the same experience as mere coincidence. Our assumptions about the nature of reality provide the basis for interpreting our experiences. If you believe in angels, all the past experiences which you interpreted as angelic intervention will be summed up in your memory as a chain of evidence that angels exist. The more evidence you have, the stronger your belief. The stronger your belief, the more likely you are to interpret new experience as further supporting evidence. The same can be said of almost any belief. All belief systems will tend to be self-reinforcing because they guide the initial interpretation of experience. No wonder we all see the world differently.
It is very hard to think in terms of questioning or revising one's own beliefs. After all, beliefs form a part of our identity. In contrast, we are pretty good at passing judgement on the beliefs of other people. Look at that person over there, he believes that evolution is false. Look at this one, she believes evolution is true. She's a Muslim. He's a Christian. How could they be so misguided? From a given perspective, it is clear that some beliefs are "better" than others. However, it takes enormous courage, and a willingness to rise above your own perspective, to look at yourself and ask:
Just how valid are my own beliefs?
How beneficial are my beliefs to myself and others?
Is it possible for me to improve on my beliefs?
So many disagreements in the world are simply matters of differences in awareness. I overheard some young men talking casually about using nuclear weapons against those who displease us (the US, that is). In my view it is NOT OK to use nuclear weapons, ever. Obviously these young men and I have a major disagreement. How is it that we have come to hold opinions in this matter that are diametrically opposed? I assume their knowledge of the world comes from video games, and they are not aware that a nuclear weapon detonated in some far away place will increase cancer rates in Oklahoma.
I am so tired of differences of opinion giving rise to conflict. Why is it that after ten-thousand years of civilization, we still haven't figured out how to avoid war? Is it because we get stuck in our beliefs? If we can understand beliefs for what they are, then maybe two things can happen: first, we may be able to examine our own beliefs to see if we can improve on what we have, and second, we may be less bent out of shape when other people happen to hold different beliefs. If two people believe opposite things, then one of them has to be wrong, right? When looking at the world from an individual perspective (which is all we've got), one would naturally say, "Anyone who thinks differently than I think is mistaken." I no longer think of beliefs as being right or wrong, true or false. The way I see it, beliefs are just mental constructs, working hypotheses that help us assemble a coherent picture of the world from an overwhelming amount of experiential data. If beliefs are just mental constructs, they can be adopted, dropped, or changed by means of conscious, deliberate effort. As I have said, you, ultimately, decide what you believe.
In the discussing a Hierarchy of Believing, I explained that I am very cautious about what I choose to believe. Actually cautious is not the right the word. The idea of caution implies a degree of fear. Let me assure you, anyone who is willing to reconsider his or her beliefs must be fearless to endure the personal uncertainty that such a review entails. Instead I would characterize my way of looking at beliefs as gentleness. I do not hold beliefs over-tightly. I try to consider beliefs with a fair eye and a centered heart. I neither love nor hate them. I no longer see beliefs as central to my identity. In that sense, I have let them go. However, if beliefs are as fundamental to awareness, experience, and action as I think they are, then I want the best beliefs I can find. I accept good beliefs into my service, and set the others aside as possibilities.
The question, then, is how does one set about evaluating one's beliefs? My approach involves asking five questions:
Is it true?
Anything can be called into question and reexamined. Why not? The things that can withstand the test of reexamination will stand on their own merit. The things that are fallacious will fall by the wayside. That still leaves room in the middle for a lot of maybes–or what I call working hypotheses. The kinds of questions one could ask include such things as:
As explained in the Hierarchy of Believing, making allowance for a little uncertainty, and recognizing that you can choose what you believe, is actually quite liberating.
Is it good?
If knowing the difference between true and false is difficult, knowing the difference between good and bad is almost impossible. Is a scorpion's sting good or bad? It is impossible to say without knowing who got stung. If a coyote gets stung on the nose, an enlightened person might be satisfied to see nature acting out its great passion play. However, if you got stung on the hand, it would hurt, no doubt, and you might have to go to the hospital. Painful? Yes. Inconvenient and expensive? Yes. Chances are your first reaction would be to say it was a bad thing to be stung by a scorpion. However, if the scorpion's sting happened to make you miss a flight that later crashed with no survivors, you might rethink your position on the matter and count the scorpion's sting as the best thing that ever happened to you.
All living creatures can interpret their experiences of the world in terms of good and bad. Our semantic network full of these polar opposites: true and false, hot and cold, black and white, yin and yang, left and right–there appears to be no limit. Our capacity to think in terms of polar opposites is called dualism or dualistic thinking. Dualism is pervasive in our mental constructs, and has been with us since the beginning. Even the membranes of the cell wall distinguish between good and bad, allowing nutrients to pass into the cell while keeping non-useful or harmful materials out. The problem is that good and bad is always relative to an individual perspective.
This is where the idea of wisdom comes into play. You have probably used a phrase like the following at some point: "I see the wisdom of what you did." You would use this expression in a situation where someone did something you thought was not the best course of action, but in the end it all turned out very well. Furthermore, hindsight allows you to see that the person actually foresaw a good outcome and knew how to obtain it. Thus I define wisdom as the ability to achieve an outcome that is of significant benefit. The more significant the benefit, the greater the wisdom. There are two ways in which benefit can be significant: 1) by providing a large amount of benefit to an individual, or 2) by conveying benefit to a large number of individuals. We almost never use the term wisdom to describe situations where the benefit is one-sided. (There is so much information embedded in our semantic network.)
Judgements of good and bad are always a matter of perspective. The broader and more inclusive the perspective, the more stable is the foundation for making judgements. Those who remain in their individual perspectives end up in the opinion zone, arguing like children: "It's mine, it is not, it is to! Nya, nya, nya." There is no resolution, because each perspective is perfectly entitled to its opinion. This is the root of conflict. Wisdom is the effort to move beyond an ego-based perspective to a place where mutual benefit can be understood and realized. Cooperation yields a much better return, in terms of human well-being, than conflict. This is why the word wisdom has very positive connotations in our language, and why those regarded as wise are universally revered. The counsel of the wise yields the greatest degree of benefit, distributed to the greatest number of people. This is why the question, "Is it good?" is worth asking. Ultimately it leads to wisdom.
How do we know?
Of the five questions, this one is my favorite. It is the kind of question that makes you stop in your tracks. The quality of the knowledge in our heads is directly related to the quality of the source. For each item of knowledge or belief I'm willing to consider, I can say, I know it because:
When I look at the various sources with a discriminating eye, it is clear that most of my knowledge of the world is based on second hand accounts–stories that have been passed on from one person to another. Did my high school history teacher ever witness the first-hand, historical or archaeological evidence that Vasco da Gama sailed to India in 1498? Probably not. He probably got that information from his teachers, and they got it from theirs. The formal setting of a classroom leads us to believe these teachings are authentic, offered in good faith, and based on true knowledge. Because of what is implied by the learning situation, we accept what we are taught as true. However, in the very same classroom where the history of European exploration was taught, it may also have been taught that communism is a better form of government than democracy. I want to be able to say that people grow up and think for themselves, and that they can reach their own conclusions about communism and democracy. The fact is, however, when analysis leads me to be critical of democracy, as practiced today in the United States, my childhood training makes me feel like I am being disloyal somehow. There is a huge emotional component associated with the knowledge given to us by our parents , teachers, and others. It requires an enormous dedication to the truth to notice that these early teachings are not the same caliber of knowledge as direct, first-hand experience. The further something is from being a first-hand experience, the more easily it can be called into question (logically, not emotionally), and the more difficult it is to verify.
Why do we care?
In evaluating a belief, it is useful to consider why the belief is important or significant. Another way to think of it is, what is the connection between this belief and me, personally. Obviously different beliefs have different levels of importance or value. When I was in the Ninth Grade, I couldn't have cared less that Vasco da Gama sailed to India hundreds of years before I was born. My teachers presented this little factoid to me in a complete vacuum. I couldn't see any good reason why I should be forced to memorize this bit of isolated knowledge. The question really is, how does this fact relate to me and my life? How will it influence any outcome one way or the other with regard to my future well-being. In looking up how to spell Vasco da Gama, I found out that by sailing around Africa, he established a new trade route that bypassed the overland trade routes, all of which were controlled by Muslims. Suddenly this is interesting. We (the West) are still experiencing serious conflicts with certain Islamic peoples and nations. I trace many of the world's current trouble spots directly back to European colonialism, which followed shortly on the heels of the Age of European Exploration. Discovering how to sail from Europe to India was an important step in the sequence of events leading to the present situation. Finally, almost 40 years later, a bit of relevance has been given to this fact. Funny how things work out sometimes. Why was this part of the story omitted in Ninth Grade?
The issue of significance is the issue of personal relevance. Looking at how your beliefs are relevant to you and your life is another way to know yourself.
What shall we do about it?
The end result of belief is action. If you believe that a fetus is sufficiently established to be considered a human being, then you will be opposed to abortion. If you believe abortion is a form of murder, you will advocate for laws against it, and when you can, intervene on behalf of the victim. Hold such a belief to an extreme degree, and extreme actions such as abortion clinic bombings may be the result.
The interesting thing about life is that we end up having more than one belief. Many beliefs come into play when deciding on a course of action. While I may be opposed to abortion, I also believe the good citizen has a social obligation to live within the law. I also know that unloved, unwanted, undernourished children are a huge problem for society, one we have neither the wisdom, the money, nor the will to deal with effectively. Furthermore, I'm very concerned about more than 6 billion people competing for the resources on a finite planet.
Another interesting thing is that I can see the other arguments in the abortion issue. I have my reasons for believing the way I do, but in the end I really can't prove that a fetus is an independent human being with an entitlement to basic human rights. A balanced view demands that a diversity of thoughts, feelings, and beliefs, my own as well as those of others, be honored in some way. The net result of holding this balance is that the extent of my action on this issue is limited to a small and personal scale: I told both my children that if they ever got into a situation where abortion was being considered, I would be willing to adopt the child. Beyond that I would take no action unless invited to do so: if someone were to ask, I would explain how I arrived at my beliefs. I would not presume to tell someone else what to do.
The idea of balance is one of the foundations of the universe. Balance is the natural centerpoint for dualistic thinking. Buddhism speaks of the Middle Way. Actions governed by a balanced view will tend to be moderate. This suits my gentle nature.
Reconsideration and Reconciliation
All knowledge, beliefs, opinions, alleged facts, ideas, and even memories can be examined in detail using these five questions. Asking the questions implies that things can be doubted. Beyond the doubt there is the freedom of knowing who you are, as evidenced by the beliefs you choose to hold and the actions you choose to take. The process of asking these questions actually allows you to create yourself in your own image. After all, if you were created in His image, wouldn't the expression of your image be a reflection of Him and His Will? It is my belief that the fearless quest for a deeper understanding will guide you to the Divine Nature within, the spark that we all share.
If you and your sworn enemy are willing to use these five questions to reconsider your cherished beliefs, the beliefs that hold you separate from one another, the outcome will be a balanced view, moderate action, and ultimately peace.
———————
When I look at a modern fighter jet, I salivate. The sheer power is a turn-on. The courage, intelligence, training, and physical prowess that it takes to fly one is impressive. I am also impressed by the technological achievement that a jet represents. We have learned to do some pretty cool things. What is even more impressive is the foundation of scientific knowledge on which the technology is based. Materials science, electronics, physics, chemistry, human factors analysis – almost every science known to humankind has likely played a role in bringing that jet into existence. Thanks to jets and other concrete manifestations of science, there is no denying the potency of the scientific method. Jets exist. Armed with nuclear weapons, a single jet can fly undetected through radar defenses and destroy a number of cities in a very short period of time. That's power. A modern military jet is just one of the gifts science has given us.
Nobody can say whether a scorpion's sting is good or bad. It depends on who gets stung. The judgement of good or bad is always a matter of perspective. Military jets have nothing but destructive power, but in the end, they are like the scorpion's sting. Because they can be used as tools of peace or war, justice or oppression, it is impossible to say whether military jets are good or bad. Jets are just a tool. The same can be said of science and the scientific method: it is neither good nor bad, it is just a tool – a tool of the mind, a way of looking at phenomena.
On its own terms, science is actually quite modest. Introductory science courses spend a lot of time trying to make the rightful domain of science very clear. Science never claims to know all the facts, good questions often being more valuable than experimental data. Science never claims to have a franchise on reality, but simply reports experimental results, often without interpretation. By definition, science focuses on things that are measurable, verifiable, and repeatable. Once a scientific fact has been established, any scientist should be able to replicate the experiments that support that fact and obtain the same results. In addition, all scientists are trained to be neutral observers. You cannot do good science if you have your heart set on proving that your favorite hypothesis is right. If you are not impartial, your attitude will bias the data. The rules of science are simple and make good sense, in the context of science. However, the philosophical consequences of these simple rules are enormous.
To understand the philosophical consequences of science, it is necessary to do a little Zen trick and see what is not, as opposed to seeing what is. By focusing on the measurable, verifiable, and repeatable, science directs its gaze towards the external phenomena of the material world. Through measurement and analysis, science incorporates a particular subset of human experience, that of physical observations, into a rational framework. By limiting its gaze to the subset of human experience that is measurable, verifiable, and repeatable, science ends up having nothing to say about all the things that are not included in that subset. There are many aspects of human experience that are strictly personal and internal. There are aspects of human experience that can never be repeated or verified by someone else. Science does not deny the existance of these experiences, it just never talks about them. Such things can never be used as part of a scientific proof, so they lie outside the rightful domain of scientific endeavor.
Because science manifests with such potency in human affairs, it has gained a lot of prestige in our society. The offspring of science, technology, does well in the marketplace, and therefore is highly prized. Science is a power in the material world, and people lust for power. When science talks, people listen. But while science is monopolozing the conversation, there is a voice that is not being heard: the inner voice of a human being. The world acknowledges science as important. The relative silence about everything outside the domain of science implies that such things are not important. It is as if to say, the experiences of life that are yours and yours alone are unimportant. It is as if to say, you are unimportant.
Yet what else is there besides the experience of one's life? What, in all of existence, can compare with being alive and knowing it?
Because it is so enamored of science, society does almost nothing to encourage people to turn their attention to the realm of inner reality. As a result, people forget how to listen to their inner voice, the music of the heart. Intellect serves its purposes, but how often to you hear people say, the heart is an organ of knowledge? As I see it, the inner reality is actually the highest reality I can know. I know the world through my senses, and they have their limitations. Inner knowing is direct. Who are you? Will science tell you that?
The other mistake of science is the effort to be impartial. There is nothing impartial about being alive. If the scorpion stings you, you will hollar out in pain. With some scorpions, you may die as a result of being stung. Experience is not impartial at all. You and your experience of life cannot be separated. If all you have is experience, then you can take every aspect of your experience personally. Scientists observe sunshine as a phenomenon. They measure its wavelength and intensity. You, as a human being, can take sunshine personally, enjoying the feeling of sunlight as it warms your skin, or enduring the pain of a sunburn. You, as a human being, can celebrate the existance of the sun and acknowledge it as the source of energy for earth-based life. As a human being, you can notice how beautiful the sunset is. Sun-worship is not a carzy idea at all. When you rediscover that you can take the elements of experience very personally, you open the door to understanding that we humans are actually connected to everything. You open the door to beauty, inner and outer.
Science has given us the ability to make nuclear weapons. The processes of politics, society, and culture have led to the creation of more than enough nuclear weapons to destroy every major city on the planet, possibly even bringing humankind to extinction. In a recent news article, I saw that the Pentagon was revising its policies on using nuclear weapons to include the possibility of preemptive first strikes against certain targets. People often talk about doing violence before they actually do it. Talking about it, in policies, brings the use of nuclear weapons that much closer to realization.
Let me illustrate the importance of taking things personally by posing the following questions:
I assure you, science would not care at all. By definition, science has nothing to say about these questions. From the perspective of science, if we humans make our planet uninhabitable in a nuclear holocaust, it will just be another extinction event. How curious.
My goal here is not to put science down. The scientific method is a great intellectual achievement. However, we must understand the rightful place of science. Science is just a resource in humanity's tool chest. You have your rightful place as well, dear one, and it's not in a tool chest. It is for humans to control the tools, not the tools to control the humans. Breathe, think, feel, act. Above all, do what science can never do and face the difficulties of our times by taking heart.
Great scientists often approach their work with a sense of awe and wonder. Great scientists see the beauty of nature in their discoveries. But no scientist would claim these feelings are scientific. They are part of the scientist as a person, not a part of science.
Let me close by illustrating the two errors of science in this way: I recently heard a Native American man say, "The earth is suffocating under all this pavement." If you listen correctly, you will see that these are heart words, not mind words. Yet due to mental habits and a narrow focus, scientists would dismiss such words as meaningless and illogical. Scientists know there are things that exists outside the framework of science – it's just that scientists don't get much practice thinking about them. As a result, scientists cannot hear these words. On the other hand, ordinary people may hear such statements and feel as if something inside them resonates. But because society gives recognition to science, and says nothing to recognize inner awareness, people end up thinking that their own sense of resonance is unimportant. I see the words quoted above as very human, and very important. I see the ability to sense inner resonance as a key to opening new doors of awareness. This is something science can't help us with.
———————
Return to top of this page.