We may have not invented the universe, but the universe is our invention alright.
Anything we understand of this world, e.g. that water is H2O, that no speed is greater than the speed of light, that e=mc2 etc are not absolute and eternal truths valid everywhere, any time in the universe, trillions of years before and trillions of years after today. The known and measurable conditions we see in our universe are the result of how we think. This is why views change over time: because our perception changes.
When a simple man, who is not an expert, says today that the sun rises from the East and sets in the West, he is not lying. Nor does he call Copernicus, who believed that the Sun revolves around the Earth, a liar. Both simple and scientific views are the product of thoughts and thoughts depend on perception. We see the universe the way we do, because this is the only way we can.
We don’t have a choice really. It is impossible to get out of the limits of our selves, as it is impossible to get out of the universe and observe it. Our view is inevitably anthropocentric, but this is not arrogance per se. What is arrogance is the conviction that our idea of the world is the world; to believe that e.g. mathematics and geometry, which we have invented, were there prior to our existence. To trust that what we believe today (which is different from what we believed yesterday and in all likelihood from what we’ll believe tomorrow) has universal validity. How on Earth can we claim that our thoughts are the world or that they should be taken for the world? That’s audacity. At the same time, that’s why being aware of our finite abilities and abundant limitations is humility.
6 comments:
We are no more the center of the universe than earth is the center of our solar system. We should accept our role in the vast universe and learn to live with it. Yes, humility is key. God does not play favorites.
"Suppose a cow were philosophical and had religion it would have a cow universe, and a cow solution of the problem, and it would not be possible that it should see our God. Suppose cats became philosophers, they would see a cat universe and have a cat solution of the problem of the universe, and a cat ruling it. So we see from this that our explanation of the universe is not the whole of the solution."
"Our only hope then lies in penetrating deeper. The early thinkers discovered that the farther they were from; the centre, the more marked were the variations and differentiations; and that the nearer they approached the centre, the nearer they were to unity. The nearer we are to the centre of a circle, the nearer we are to the common ground in which all the radii meet; and the farther we are from the centre, the more divergent is our radial line from the others.... And where is that centre?"
Jnana Yoga by Swami Vivekananda
Thank you both for your comments.
The fact is, James, that we believed once that the Earth was the center of our solar system. Now we know otherwise. Beliefs and views shift, as our ability to "penetrate deeper" changes. That's good, because who knows what beautiful things are there next?
Ersi, the "what" and the "where" of the center depend on what is in the eye of the beholder. If only we could see with the heart...
Each beholder has his own eyes. That's what we have to use to behold. Each beholder is himself the center.
Mysteriously, the unity of it all is behind this very multiplicity. And it cannot be any other way. The shortcut to the cosmic center is through our own individual center. No one of us can use the eyes of another beholder.
So, yes, in the beginning everything is necessarily anthropocentric. That will change if and when we change ourselves.
Don't you think that communication via net is - in its own way - a pure expression of impartiality ? It has no baggage of other impressions to interfere with concepts.
We exult when we think we have exceeded our limitations - yet time,senses and inclination limit us to very small abilities of reflection. Rather we mimic and act out roles which carry their own freight of assumptions.
@opit
No, I don't believe that the net allows a pure expression of impartiality. The words you write never add up to what they would if encountered, say, in a dictionary. There are always connotations, different tones of expression, mild or all-too-obvious hues, in-between meanings, and so on.
The only baggage that is missing is tone of voice, facial expressions, body language, stuff like that. But chemistry between people is still there, even something vague that resembles a presence is... It's not just a mind game, even though it's full of opinions. In Greece we say that opinions are like noses; everybody's got one!
Post a Comment