Dialectic Progress

“Compartmentalisation is easy. Integrity is painful.It requires we be fully open to the conflicting forces and ideas and stresses of life.” – [M. Scott Peck]

The irony with regard to modern science is that it now is in a position to prove much of what it had initially sought to debunk.

Besides the obvious difficulty in having to admit this, the rational endeavour of exploring the external surface of reality was most certainly a necessary one, and one that I suppose could not have been otherwise. Unfortunately the obstacle preventing a new scientific understanding on the all-important matter of our existence is inherent in intellectualism itself, in that it generally is dialectic. In dialectics a common understanding usually derived at by the debate of opposing points of view by opposing proponents of the particular view.

And thus the tendency is that we view reality as either one way or another, or perhaps somewhere in between, but never to incorporate aspects of the opposing stance. Dialectics – colloquially referred to as the dialectic of progress – therefore is unavoidably adversarial with factions vociferously arguing for one view of reality; while another group arguing for the exact opposite. Thus most of the time the opposing parties usually are equally wrong and equally right on some aspect of the truth. As a result, the intellectual debate is reactive, with the tendency being to hold a position against a particular point of view, instead of having a stance towards advancing knowledge and understanding.

This unfortunately is how science progresses: through the scientific debate, as the opposing viewpoints – often after decades of bitter squabbling – eventually find a measure of common ground; and usually decades after the truth had already been established. And because the boisterous self-serving ego which frequently involved with the associated intellectualism, it usually only leads to more division and confusion than any true enlightenment.

The Reality Scale

“We have to live today by what truth we can get today and be ready tomorrow to call it falsehood.” – [William James]

To understand how the various layers of mind fit together, we have to appreciate that the Rationaliser is at the centre of our Human Consciousness model despite our depiction representing it exclusively within spacetime. To understand this we can view the Rationaliser as the executive part of our being allowing us to constructively navigate both materiality as well as unmateriality with. The Reactor on the other hand is also an Interpreter of sorts, in that it simply interprets environmental stimuli, similarly producing a structured impersonal response.

Human Consciousness Model

We can in fact re-interpret our previous Consciousness Model as a balancing scale as depicted below. In this diagram the Rationaliser can be seen as being responsible for constructively balancing the needs of the Self for communion with all of creation, against the very real demands of our very noisy and determined Sensor.

Human Consciousness depicted as a Reality Scale

The Self can thus be viewed as a motorized fulcrum which has the power to tip the scale of consciousness in either direction. This is determined by the choices we make based on how we process the information from our environments within the Rationaliser. Doing so strengthening the Self to assert itself in the world by developing will power—the inner power that allows us to tilt the scales of Consciousness in the direction, based on our judgement and deliberations, that best serves our personal and our collective human ends. And if a choice is not a product of will, it stands to reason that the choice is either a neutral one, or one that goes directly against an end that would nurture the Self.

Constructive living therefore requires we balance the incessant demands of the Sensor, with that of the Observer (Integrator) calling us towards higher levels of Integration. To achieve an ordered relationship with reality – as opposed to a disordered one – therefore requires we consciously balance the forces at play emanating from these divergent aspects of our being. We do this by developing a realistic relationship with our greater world by incorporating all information; to in this way better represents all ends of the reality scale.

This though is only truly possible once we become open-minded by developing the ability for both reflection and reason, in this way allowing one to make informed choices by utilising the full scope of information that may be at our disposal.

Realism versus Idealism

“Denying realism amounts to megalomania (the most widespread occupational disease of the professional philosopher).” – [Karl Popper]

There are many other examples of the aforementioned tension of the opposites: such as that between labour versus management, conservatives versus liberals, the religious versus the scientific community, romantics versus existentialists, developers versus nature conservationists. But since time immemorial this tension is encapsulated by that between realists and idealists. Realists being more comfortable with a pragmatic and systematic approach towards progress, generally preferring to maintain the status quo. The unfortunate downside of this though is that they also tend to view the world pessimistically as well.

On the other hand idealists tend to strive towards a more radical future reality and consequently are generally more optimistic about the future. Though very often unrealistically so.

The major paradox we can derive from this is that the best place to be is not in one camp or the other, but rather, to incorporate both mental dynamics. Perhaps one orientation being more dominant than the other at any particular point in time within one’s life. This perhaps being dependent on our individual experiences which may affect our confidence, or how our personalities may be inclined towards facing uncertainty.

To illustrate how this paradox may play out, suppose you have an accounting business: to while dutifully doing the day-to-day grind expected of an accountant, nevertheless to dream that one day your business would become the leading accounting firm in your city, your country, or the world, and to envision how that position of power and prosperity may change the world for the better. Otherwise without the latter, the endeavour will have no meaningful higher significance, but rather that of shallow self gratification.

These are the examples of George Soros and Bill Gates, who after amassing great wealth and influence in an intensely cutthroat capitalist business world that requires absolute pragmatism, to also have become the greatest philanthropists of our time. This they invariably could not have accomplished if they had only sought to address the needs of all-humanity before their own ascension to power and affluence. If they indeed did so without having made their personal acquisition they in all likelihood would not have had much influence to affect the world meaningfully at all.

This is exactly what drove Soros. Having seen the devastation of World War II, he vowed he someday would have the power to influence the world for the better. And that he certainly did, and is still doing, having left a legacy which will more than likely continue his vision of a better world well beyond his departure from this lifetime.

Those with such great ideals and who succeed at them are called visionaries: having the capacity to successfully reconcile their magnificent dream for a better world into material reality. These are the examples set by the Alexander’s, Nelson Mandela’s, Mahatma Ghandi’s, Martin Luther King’s, Michael Gorbechov’s, Henry Ford’s, Richard Branson’s, Albert Einstein’s, Mother Theresa’s, Bill Clinton’s and Thomas Edison’s of this world.

This is as opposed to a van Gough who was also such an idealist who indeed dreamed of a future reality that was yet to be, impressionist art. But unfortunately was so out of touch with the reality of his time; while leaving an incalculably rich legacy for a future world, for himself only unfulfilment, pain and misery.

Do we now blame the people of his day for the predicament this genius was faced with?

Perhaps!

Then again, who can blame anybody for merely being what their time and place expected of them. They after all were the realists, not the foolish starry-eyed idealist wanting to change their world to his particular vision, but with which they were very comfortable with.

And van Gough certainly has to take a large measure of responsibility for his own predicament, for if he was a realist as well he would have known that for his own comfort he should still take care of the here and now by still catering for the mindset of his time, albeit narrow, while certainly still creating on the canvass of the future.

Please forgive the example for I know the high position we have given this great artist. I nevertheless used the above example because I doubt van Gough did his artwork necessarily towards an ideal aimed at the betterment of all humanity. Therefore that the resulting suffering and ridicule was a willing he was prepared to pay for the fulfilment of this ideal

Though this most notably the case with Joan of Ark, for the price she knew she risked paying for the ideal of a free France, was her very own life. And how dreadfully did she willingly die, to be burnt alive at the Stake while having the choice to save her life by forsaking her dream. If this was indeed so for van Gough he certainly would not have taken his life in despair for the rejection of his great vision.

Again ,please note that I hesitantly used this example. It nevertheless is a poignant one as it clearly demonstrates the consequences of not integrating the opposite mental dynamics in our life and in no way is intended to diminish the life and work of van Gough. There is also the possible medical condition of Schizophrenia to consider. But the reality is nevertheless that to have such a strong gift that brings such a clear future vision into one’s current reality is the most difficult human requirement by its very nature to reconcile within one’s realistic sense of Self. It is because it requires an equally strong sense of present reality to maintain a state of internal balance and harmony that one does not become derailed by one’s overwhelming ideals. And as is the case with Autistic Savants who have inherited a single superhuman gift, our genius very often has an incalculable price to be forfeited: our potential loss of connectedness to the time and space we are born into.

One therefore can consider van Gough’s predicament being that he was too gifted, his vision too advanced, particularly in being born in a very repressive time in history.  Though, if he was fortunate enough to have lived today his vision could resulted in a very different outcome altogether.

But then again, perhaps not.

© Newton Fortuin – 2006

Trext from 

Paradox Lost and Found