Is There A “Natural World” Independent of Human Knowing about it?
Essay Two: Wholistic Existential Anthropology: A Theory of Everything
Introduction
Essay Number One introducing Wholistic Existential Anthropology as a theory conceived to address the question: “What is the nature of Reality?” was published on Medium. Com on June 17, 2019. The current essay will continue to explicate the theory, proposed structures and processes within it, and will present ideas and examples that suggest how the theory might provide worthwhile solutions to problems, issues and dilemmas that have been extant in previous “Thinking” and writing about the “nature of reality”. My hope is that the presentation will be another step on the path leading to support of my conceiving “reality” in a holistic and triadic theory, rather than in a framework that conceives “reality” as only an undifferentiated unity or a schismatic duality.
Thus, in relation to the question of whether the “nature of reality” should be considered monadic or triadic, it is conceived within Wholistic Existential Anthropology that “reality” should be thought of as both. Furthermore, in the sense that within the theory distinctions are made between differentiated “worlds” of “reality” and differentiated aspects within those “worlds”, the theory could also be considered dualistic. The distinctions are made in terms of analytic language which is dichotomous. A brief presentation on the possible validity of conceiving “reality” as quaternal will be also be included.
It is often difficult for me to tell if many other theoretical approaches to defining the “nature of reality” are monadic, dualistic, triadic, or quaternal. Sometimes the theorists seem to say one thing and mean another. I think these difficulties grow out of the necessary and formidable problem of deciding how to place the human knower (or subject) in relation to “reality” (the object).
For example, in the writings attributed to Lao Tzu (the Tao Te Ching and Hua Hu Ching), it appears that the “reality” principle which is conceived is monadic. Lao Tzu talks about the Tao (the Way) as watery, flowing, unified, and beyond the dichotomies of and distinctions of Human thinking. In his writing it seems that the Tao is what is “reality”. The painting reproduced below which is my attempt to represent the Tao, non-verbally, attempts to capture these qualities.
It is not clear to me if Lao Tzu is intending to include Yin and Yang as aspects of reality or as extant outside of “reality”. Lao’s conception does seem to include them as representing the “Thinking” function in Humans — and they are language dependent and dichotomous, even if complementary. These issues might be unclear in part or in whole due to the nature of the language in which the Tao Te Ching is written (perhaps classical Chinese is less amenable to analytic “Thinking” — or perhaps Lao Tzu is deliberately choosing poetic, non-analytic language because this is how he conceives the “Tao reality”. It is also possible that there are issues created because I only read Tao Te Ching and Hua Hu Chhing in English translation (there are more than a dozen of these translations).
Even in relation to science, in its theoretical, or in its practical mode, it is not always clear whether a monadic or dualistic framework is being proposed. The split between what is to be known and who knows it is often implicit if not explicit and implies a dualistic view of reality. Reductionistic proposals, again sometimes explicitly, often implicitly, imply a more monadic view. See fuller discussion later on in this essay.
Graham Harmon , theorizing within Object-Oriented Ontology appears to offer a quaternal theory — his proposed basic “elements” are “Sensual Objects”, “Real Objects”, “Sensual Qualities” and “Real Qualities”. However, these are generated by reference to the duality of Objects and Qualities and there seems to be single or monadic principle “deeper” than even this dichotomy. Harmon’s book, Object-Oriented Ontology:A New Theory of Everything is a must-read for anyone currently theorizing about the “nature of reality”.
These considerations have led me to organize the essay in a way that makes the issue of how to conceive the relationship between the knower and what is known, at the forefront. Its explication will, I think, highlight what is intended in the structuring of Wholistic Existential Anthropology and how it differs from other “theories of everything”. Therefore, I address the focusing question: “Is there a (natural) “world” which is independent of Human Knowing about it?” Derivative questions, which are also salient, are: “Can we know or be sure there is such a world?”, and “How can we know about it?”, and “what can and can’t we know about it??
In the theory called Wholistic Existential Anthropology the Human knower is explicitly located within the basic way in which “reality” is conceived. Human Knowing, referred to as “Phenomenological World”, is one of three “worlds of reality” (along with “Physical World” and “Theoretical World” (see the six basic proposals of the theory in Essay One) .
The somewhat simplified diagrammatic representation of the theory, which highlights both the unity and the triadic structure of “reality” as conceived within Wholistic Existential Anthropology appears below. This diagram also supports the focus on the question of the extancy of a “world” independent of Human knowing about it:
In the diagram within the area of “PHYSICAL WORLD”, within the “reality of all there is”, appears a small square labeled, “natural world”. This square in the diagram is intended to indicate that within the theory of Wholistic Existential Anthropology there is an endorsement of the extancy of an aspect of “reality”, referred to as “natural world”, and an endorsement of the belief that the (or a) “natural world” has extancy independent of Human “Thinking” about “it”.
However, within Wholistic Existential Anthropology, this presumed “natural world” is not “all of reality”. I am conceiving the theory, out of my judgment that limiting our conception of “reality” to that presumed “natural world” leads to long-standing philosophical problems which have never been resolved in a fully satisfactory way. I also believe that this same limited view of the “nature of reality” is a source of practical problems in Human Existence which are not only “undesirable”, but also might be considered potentially disastrous (at least from the point of view of Human life and Existence).
I hold the opinion (as suggested in Essay One) that only Human Beings ask the question “what is the nature of reality?” and, as stated here, I also believe that only Human Beings ask “Is there a world (or “reality”) independent of our “Thinking” or knowing about it?”
For me this implies that the “idea” that there might be or is a “world independent of our knowing about it”, is extant only in a “reality” which includes individual Human “Thinking”. That is, the “idea” (of a “natural world”) is an aspect of Human thought and has no “reality” independent of Human thought.
Within the theory of Wholistic Existential Anthropology, individual Human “Thinking” (and Human MINDING and Human Experience) are all conceived to be essential elements of all that is “reality”. This aspect of reality is called “Phenomenological World” of “reality”.
I also hold the opinion that individual Human ideas are to be considered knowledge when they are expressed in some physical form (like writing or theories of Art or mathematical symbols) that allows them to be extant beyond (in “time” and “space”) individual “Thinking”. In this form they become collective (social and cultural) and are shareable and publicly available for collaborative understanding, debate and further development. The written book is not “the theory”, it only transforms ideas into a “form within “Physical World” which then makes it available collectively, culturally, socially, and extant in “Theoretical world”. My “Thinking” this way leads me to the conclusion that if there is extancy of what we call “knowledge” about a “natural world” and what it might be like, the “knowledge” is extant in a “world of theory” which can be conceived within the context of Human collective “understanding”.
Within the theory of Wholistic Existential Anthropology, collective Human Knowledge (and MEANING and Culture) are all conceived to be essential elements of all that is “reality”. This is called “Theoretical World” of “reality”.
I am launching my individual “Thinking” about “reality” as proposed “knowledge” into “Theoretical World” by writing about it and “publishing” the written version on Medium.com, where it becomes shared publicly and available to others for their criticism, rejoinders, elaborations and integration into the historical Human exploration of the “MEANING” of “reality”.
Proposition Four of Wholistic Existential Anthropology was stated this way in Essay One: “This triadic way of conceiving “reality” includes the “idea” that our way of studying, defining finding and demonstrating “validity” (or TRUTH) will be different as we “think” about each of three “worlds of reality”.
This proposition is relevant to the major issues being addressed in this second essay, because those issues can be meaningfully translated as a question related to the evidence we have that supports the belief in a natural, physical, material world that may be extant independent of Human “Thinking”. (We can also ask what evidence — and what is the nature of such evidence- we have that “natural world” is extant in “Phenomenological World” and “Theoretical World” and those questions will be addressed in passing here and more fully in another essay).
We do have evidence to support the belief that there is a “natural world”. This evidence is related to the principles of how we establish TRUTH in relation to “Physical World”. The scientific method as a way to study “Physical World” includes empirical processes of observation, measurement, and manipulation of variables. It also dependent upon theories that make predictions which are then supported or dis-confirmed through the empirical processes. Such evidence cannot, however, be conceived as absolute — rather, because of the way we understand what it means to study and find TRUTH in relation to “Physical World”, such evidence is always relative, tentative and subject to revision. An exploration of the nature of evidence, will also be undertaken in a later essay.
It is all of the wondrous achievements of scientific research, as the study of “Physical World” — all of its predictive theoretical capabilities and all of its practical technological inventions — which provide evidence (agreed upon theoretically and collectively) that there is a “natural world”. Our ability to build rockets and send them to the moon and back, lasers which assist in the removal of cataracts so that people are not blinded by them, wireless communications which allow us to transmit energies reproducible as speech, visual images, and abstract information — all give testimony to our knowledge of “Physical World”. The “stability” and regularity, the reproducibility of our research and technological outcomes, the ability of our theories to make predictions that are then supported by observation and measurement, all are strongly suggestive that there is a “physical reality” which is likely to be there whether we are collecting information about it or not. This independent reality is what we conceive to be “a” or “the” “natural world”.
To reiterate, that evidence, as considered within Wholistic Existential Anthropology is only conceived as extant in the context of Human “Thinking” and “theorizing” about it. We cannot “prove” in an absolute sense that there is a world that is extant independent of Human “Thinking”, because all we have is evidence, based upon and limited by how we think, and our common understanding and agreement, subject to revision based on new evidence. Thus, the “evidence” itself is not independent of our “Thinking” and is also not “absolute”.
We also have evidence that can be thought of as prior to the kind of “Thinking” and theory that allows evidence to be called evidence. We do have evidence that most animals behave in ways that suggest they are successfully interacting with a “natural world” — even though they have no verbal concept of “natural world” and no verbal concept of evidence. For example, the Baltimore Oriole builds a nest that is easily recognized as following a replicable pattern that is complicated and highly functional, using materials in “Physical World”. Young children’s behavior can be understood in the same way. Neither tigers nor the average one and half year old Human child walk into walls although neither have a word for wall. This evidence leads to a necessary examination of what we mean by Human “Thinking” and its non-human counterparts. This will be taken up in a following essay on language, thought and reality. (see the writings of Jean Piaget and Heinz Werner.)
I am suggesting that Human Existence is to be understood as taking place in relation to “Physical World” (rather than the “physical world” or “natural world”). “Physical World” is “ideational” and “theoretical”. “Physical World” can be “conceived” and plausibly believed to be related to a “natural world”, in complex ways that require careful “Thinking” and theorizing to understand those aspects of “reality” in a way that is true. I am proposing that the structure of the theory of Wholistic Existential Anthropology will contribute to an increase in understanding those relationships. This understanding can increase what we know and how effectively and healthfully we live and operate in the world of Theory (“MEANING” which includes spirituality) the world of Experience (“MINDING” which is psychological) and the world of “MATTTER/ENERGY” (which is physical, chemical, biological and artifactual).
It is the very success of science based on empirical processes, and analytic “Thinking” (logical and mathematical) that has led to a frequent implicit or explicit belief that the physical world (material), is the ultimate “reality” or the only thing worthy of being considered “reality”. Such “Thinking” and “theory” often include reductive “beliefs” which hold that all of the other aspects of the world are eventually understandable as reduced to that which is “material/energetic” (“physical”). Such theories may propose or assume, for example, that the Human mind (Human “MINDING”) can ultimately be understood entirely in terms of the biological functioning of the Human brain. The deeper aspects of this kind of “Thinking” often include (explicitly or implicitly) the idea that politics (and economics) can be reduced to sociology and sociology can be reduced to psychology and psychology can be reduced to biology and biology can be reduced to chemistry and chemistry can be reduced to physics. This disregards the problem that physicists are having reducing macro-physics to micro-physics such that many physicists are beginning to think that the “theory of everything” is an illusion or an unreachable Ideal.
Although science as theory or belief, in its reductive forms, appears to be monadic — with “reality reduced to “matter/energy” — historically it seems that scientific empiricism grew up in a context of dualistic “Thinking”. This involved a split between the knower and the known, with “reality” as something to be studied and known by the observer/experimenter. This leads to a demotion of non-material aspects of the world as “not-real”, or, at least, “not-important” — or not as “real” as the “material world” or not as important as the “physical world”. This state of affairs is represented in the following diagram:
This conception of “reality” as limited only to that which is “tangible” and “physical” might be called “nave materialism”. This dualistic and consequently reductive “Thinking” and theorizing about “reality” entails numerous philosophical problems — which appear to have been extant even when there was only what I would call “pre-philosophy” — philosophical thinking that is not written down. A very creative, and much more grounded in-the-history-of-philosophy, discussion of these issues appears in the explication of Object-Oriented Ontology: A New Theory of Everything by Graham Harmon. (More about how Object-Oriented Ontology and Wholistic Existential Anthropology intersect, are relevant for one another and how they differ, will be considered at least somewhat more fully in other essays.) Historical and modern essays related to these issues (discussed as dualism, the mind/body problem, solipsism, etc.) can be found in The Philosophy of Mind: Classical Problems/Contemporary Issues). In any case, a “naive materialism” relegates the non-material aspects of the world to the realm of the “not-real” or the not important.
I offer the following in support of the difficulties created within a framework “naive materialism”. I believe that these difficulties suggest the need for a different theoretical structure to address questions about the “nature of reality” — including the possibility of a triadic and holistic structure such as that conceived as Wholistic Existential Anthropology.
1. “Scientific materialism” often leads to technological products that work in the physical sense but which are destructive rather than productive (for example, the hydrogen bomb). Moreover, how can we make judgments about whether to make hydrogen bombs or not, without ideals or values? Science and Technology are not value free and values are not physical or material.
2. “Materialism” and the kind of dichotomous analytic “Thinking” that supports it have been only partially effective, or very ineffective, or even counter-productive, in promoting Human welfare in the broader sense (for example by way of the applied fields of knowledge — education, politics or government, and even in medicine in relation to health as opposed to curing illnesses).
3. The physical sciences are facing questions or beginning to develop conceptual structures that no longer seem reasonably to be limited to the merely physical as we have understood that term up until now. (For example, in relation to “time”, the propositions that there may be more than one past, or that the future is always already present as a set of many — or infinite — possibilities, is hard to fit into the conceptual framework that has previously been used to define what we mean by physical “reality”. Many physicists are at least dimly aware of the difficulties in these proposals. Some are explicitly aware of and discussing this issue and the problems pertaining to it, even if not fully addressing the theoretical implications. For examples see the works of Stephen Hawking and Marcus Du Sautoy .
4. The Physical sciences themselves cannot meaningfully or usefully function without non-material values and ideals. Science belongs to a cultural and intellectual realm whose very extancy is dependent upon inclusion of standards which are required to keep it free from corruption and dysfunction. There is nothing worthy of being called science if it is not carried out within the “IDEAL” of a search for TRUTH. This “IDEAL” is “real” and necessary and clearly not material or physical. The concept of Ideals will be discussed extensively in future essays explicating Wholistic Existential Anthropology.
5. Science, in its theoretical mode, is now leading to technologies and actions which are altering processes which have been thought of as physical and material in the biological realm such as genetics and the processes conceived to be an aspect of biology –for example, evolution. Gene splicing can change the physical structure of living entities, including Human Beings. It seems obvious to me and many others, that doing so with no consideration of the non-material aspects of life (“Phenomenological World” and Human Existence) could easily lead to disaster.
6. The development of “Cyber Space” and it’s relationship to culture, civilization, and TRUTH also highlights the need for a theory of “reality” which is not limited to materiality. (A very recent discussion relevant to this issue appears in an opinion piece in The New York Times by Kevin Munger). It is not clear to me whether the problems emerging in Human Existence which are related to the internet might be better addressed by conceiving it as a new and distinct “world of reality” (essentially leading to a promulgation of a “quaternal” theory of reality), or using the current triadic structure within Wholistic Existential Anthropology to analyze the “MEANING” of the extancy of “cyber space” and to work toward maximization of its positive possibilities and the minimization of its negative potentials. It does seem clear in terms of the impact which the digital realm has already had in politics, education, and Human culture, that it makes contributions to TRUTH, GOODNESS, and BEAUTY, and also to LIES, IMMORALITY AND UGLINESS. It seems to me that this is another example of the risks involved in letting technology and materialism alone guide what we allow to become extant and in what form.
The distortion in understanding the “nature of reality” through the limiting of our conception of “reality” to what is physical or material, (related to an over reliance on analytic, dualistic “Thinking”, reductive “Thinking”, (which I have referred to as “naive materialism”) is matched by a corresponding distorting process in relation to “Theoretical World”. I will refer to this distortion as “Literal Spiritualism” and it grows out of a process in “Thinking” and theorizing which can be called reification. Again, questions about the nature of TRUTH or the rules of evidence for different “worlds of reality” come into focus in considering this issue.
The definition for “reify” (as it appears in Webster’s page 2100) is: to regard (an abstraction, a mental construction, etc.) as a thing; to materialize; to convert into something concrete or objective; as, to reify space and time .
I hope that the following discourse and examples will help to elucidate what is intended here.
In 1981 I decided to have a second surgical attempt to reverse a vasectomy which I had undergone more than a decade previously. I was very invested in obtaining a favorable outcome from this surgery, for my (second) wife and I were very eager to have a child. I prepared for the surgery by including imagery and prayer for several weeks in my morning journaling and meditation routine. At one point during my practice, I had an image of a many armed apparently female figure — which I vaguely recognized as a Goddess appearing in some painting or figurine from a spiritual or religious tradition in India. She appeared several times during these preparatory sessions and seemed to me to be a response to my seeking support for the surgery.
As the fateful date approached , another visit to the surgeon who was going to perform the surgery reminded me that I would have to make a choice as to whether to have local or general anesthesia during the procedure. The doctor recommended local anesthesia. Facing this decision evoked a great deal of conflict in me. I was afraid of being conscious during the surgery (as I had been during a medical procedure during my early teen age years which I can still remember as painful and humiliating). I also thought that if I were awake, I could continue to use prayer and imagery to support the possibility of a successful outcome for the procedure — a return to fertility. I thought that this is what I should do.
I lived with this conflict for about three weeks, and kept vacillating — should I choose a local anesthesia or a general one? My morning introspection did not lead to a confident, steady decision. The conflict continued up until the day I had to go to the hospital for pre-admission processes, which included a meeting with the anesthesiologist who would be present during the surgery. I entered her office still uncertain about my choice. I was fearful in relation to either possibility and cowered in the face the uncertainty involved, compelled by some sense of what would be “right”. The anesthesiologist just assumed that I would have local anesthesia, only increasing my consternation. Somehow I uttered words that told her that my doctor had told me that I had a choice, and she agreed that this was true. I found myself telling her I wanted the general anesthesia and so it was scheduled.
I left the anesthesiology suite and entered a long, sterile, modern corridor with white walls and florescent lights. There were closed doors every few feet and no other people. I was immediately filled with a sense of regret and guilt because of my choice to be unconscious during the surgery. I kept thinking that fear had dictated the decision. This would mean I could not be present to keep lending my energy in support of the surgery. I had an impulse to run back to the anesthesiologist’s office and to ask to have the local anesthesia.
I knew that I could do this and the forward motion of my walking slowed and I thought I was about to turn around. However, I felt leaden and could only slowly continue to walk toward the end of the corridor, racked with conflict, guilt, confusion, uncertainty and a sense of dread.
Suddenly, I heard a voice speaking. The sound seemed to come from a few feet behind me and near the ceiling of the hallway. I had an image of the many-armed Goddess and I heard her voice say, “Harris, relax, you will be alright”. I could feel the tension leave my body, the weight that had brought my walking to a snail’s pace melting away. The sense of guilt and fear floated off into the air . I felt acceptance and confidence in the path I was on, and the conflict was gone.
Three days later, I had the surgery, with no further regrets. I continued my meditative and imagery work up until the general anesthesia took hold. Indeed I was “alright”.
I describe myself as an Atheist who prays.
In the world of analytic “Thinking”, and logic, this statement would be considered not meaningful, or untrue, or false. “A” cannot be “not A” in categorical thinking (see Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and her references to Aristotle). Yet, I find the description meaningful in spite of the apparent paradox that arises out of using language which seems to point to a “logical reality”, when it does not. Literature and poetry, and history all depend on using language in ways that are not necessarily logical or categorical, even if the structure of language itself has sometimes been considered to be dichotomous.
For example Lao Tzu begins the Tao Te Ching with the lines (subject to uncertainties inherent to the process of translation –this one by Stephen Mitchell):
“The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal Name. The unnamble is the eternally real.”
I might paraphrase: “The reality that can be expressed in analytic language is not all of reality.”
I find the framework of Wholistic Existential Anthropology useful in explicating what is” meaningful” in my statement. At the simplest level, when I say I am an atheist, I am saying that I do not believe that there is a God (or Goddess) who intervenes in “Physical World”, who can in actuality part the Red Sea or remove the sludge from my partially clogged aortic arteries. I do, however, believe that prayer, in the form of petition and gratitude are “real” in “Phenomenological World”. Furthermore, I believe that God is extant in “Theoretical World” — in all of the books and essays and articles in the fields of philosophy and theology. I also believe that there is “MEANING” in praying to God (even if God can’t or doesn’t intervene in “Physical World”). I experience the “reality” of praying with gratitude and praying for support outside of my self and I find it “meaningful”. I have not always called myself an atheist and might not do so now, other than my sense that so much of the discussion using the word God seems to refer to a belief that God is a being who can speak to Human Beings — in the same way that Human Beings can speak to each other — with physical manifestation of that speaking — and that God can intervene in the world physically and materially.
Speaking within the framework of the theory of Wholistic Existential Anthropology, I support the judgment that there is no scientific, empirical evidence that God is extant in “Physical World” or has intervened in “Physical World”. Biblical scripture, which I consider to be a “sacred text” is evidence for the extancy of God in “Theoretical World” but not evidence that meets criteria for validity or TRUTH in a scientific understanding of “Physical World”. I also did not take my hearing the voice in the hospital corridor as evidence that the goddess was speaking to me in a way that could be considered part of the physical world.
To reiterate , “Phenomenological World” of “reality” is the world of individual Human Experience. I have had “religious” Experiences — in the way that William James and Julian Huxley talk about them. I have had Experiences of God and gotten comfort from the voice of a Goddess. I heard her voice as coming from outside of myself, and I considered the possibility that it might be a voice extant in “Physical World”. Yet, as powerful as the Experience was, and as helpful, it didn’t lead me to believe that the voice came from a being that had physical extancy outside of myself. I believe the hearing was a “psychological reality” and that it came out of my own (creative) “MINDING”, my imagination. I do state with strong conviction, that these Experiences that I have had are “real” for me and have been important in my life. (For another example, see my essay, Anchors Aweigh on my website).
If three other people had been walking in the hospital corridor when I heard the voice and all of us at the same time reported that we were hearing the same words, and later confirmed our individual experiences by describing an identical sounding event, my openness to considering that something had happened which pointed to some need to expand my understanding about the nature of physical “reality” and the extancy of gods and goddesses would very likely have been different. However, to become a part of scientific knowledge about “Physical World” independent, future replication would be required.
None of the above is intended to say that I don’t believe that prayer itself can affect that aspect of Human “reality” that is extant as (our) Human body in “Physical World” or that such an understanding is not compatible with the way “reality” is conceived within Wholistic Existential Anthropology. From the perspective of Wholistic Existential Anthropology, “reality” is conceived as a unified, dynamic, interactive and co-creating gestalt. It may be that prayer, with its surrender and asking for support that is beyond the individual self, can affect our bodies (and our cancer, for example) and there is no reason why we shouldn’t pray and avail ourselves of this possibility.
However, the methods of establishing TRUTH and collecting evidence in relation to “Physical World” suggest that our health is likely to be best served by not excluding surgery and chemotherapy and radiation from the way we might respond to a cancer diagnosis (or statin medication in responding to high cholesterol and clogged arteries}. There is empirical evidence that these medical treatments have measurable effects. The scientific “evidence” that prayer works to cure bodily illnesses (or helps in the treatment of cancer) is much more tenuous, especially in terms of how often prayer alone cures cancer in comparison to how often modern medical treatments do. (Although there are implications from the way in which “reality” and evidence are conceived within the theory of Wholistic Existential Anthropology which suggest fundamental flaws in how pharmacological research is conducted. More about this in another essay.)
This discussion could be expanded to include of the place of mindfulness in treating physical illnesses; presumably the major difference is that meditation is not dependent upon believing or having evidence that God intervenes in our physical health. The discussion of the “MEANING” of the “placebo effect” can also take place within the context of the theoretical structure offered within Wholistic Existential Anthropology. These discussions will not take place here.
To delve deeper, my Experience is that prayer involves the phenomenological necessity of the sense of an other outside of myself — and this is what makes it different, at least for me, from meditation or mindfulness. When I pray, I have the Experience of praying to an other, outside of myself. The Experience is “real” in my own individual “Phenomenological World”. I need no outside evidence of the extancy of that other to validate the Experience or the “reality” or Truth of that Experience. In the same regard, reading that others have had such an Experience (see William James, Julian Huxley), is validation that the other (often referred to as God) is extant in collective, Cultural, “Theoretical World” and the concept is “real” and can be true in that “world of reality” as well as in “Phenomenological World”.
As I conceive it, “MEANING” is the major constituent of “World Theoretical” and the essence of “MEANING” is that it connects individual Human Beings to a world beyond the individual self — the theoretical or spiritual world that is needed for a comprehensive understanding Experience of what it means to be Human. This points to the reason why I believe that a theory of “reality” cannot exclude “Existential” issues (and hence that word in the name of the theory). Obviously this topic will be discussed more fully in later essays.
The distortion involved in “literal spiritualism” is the reification of the personal Experience of God and the meaningful theoretical extancy of God so that these “Experiences” and these shared ideas or cultural beliefs, are considered to also hold true in that aspect of “reality” which is referred to as “Physical World” in Wholistic Existential Anthropology. When reified, a “real” “Experience” and a “real” and “meaningful” theory, are treated as if they describe the physical/material world in the same way that the “The law of gravity” does in “physical world” and what it is scientifically reasonable to consider “knowledge” about the “natural world”. This can lead to personal decision making that does not serve the “Health” of the individual or the call for collective, societal action that does not serve the “Health” of the community.
However, from the way in which “reality” is conceived within the theory Wholistic Existential Anthropology it is considered legitimate to do research to look for evidence that God is extant in “Physical World” and can and has or does intervene in “Physical World”. However, it should also be clear that such evidence, if it is to join in the scientifically created consensus about the nature and characteristics of “Physical World” must be carried out within the physical science framework that has been agreed upon. Some discussion of what that research might look like within the current way of establishing TRUTH in “Physical World” will take place in another essay.
Another example suggesting how the theory of Wholistic Existential Anthropology might be useful in understanding another topic which is of concern in the modern social world is represented by the question: “When does Human life begin?”. People often pose this question as if It is a question about an objective physical world (or the “natural world”) and that it can be settled by an appeal to physical evidence alone (when there is a heart beat, when there is the ability to survive outside of the womb, when egg and sperm become (successfully) united). From the point of view of Wholistic Existential Anthropology the initial question actually involves two issues. The first is related to how biocosm (the element of physical “reality” that is conceived to be alive) is differentiated from the rest of the elements in “Physical World” (micro and macro and artifactual). The second is related to the differentiation between Human extancy and Human Existence and the other elements and worlds of “reality” — including “life” in non-human forms.
These questions are proposed to be ideational, theoretical, and from the point of view of Wholistic Existential Anthropology, the questions are asked and the answers are created in “Theoretical World”. The “MEANING” of the questions and their answers is social, political, spiritual and political. Human Beings, individually and collectively decide when Human life begins and what its value is. Evidence from and about “Physical World” can be used to give definition to what we mean, but the determination of the where the line is can’t ever be absolute, or objective or independent of what Human Beings think about it and decide about it — in terms of our Ideals and what is meaningful to us. The answer can’t be value free.
Concluding Remarks
The writing here is intended to suggest that any full conceiving of “reality” must acknowledge that Human “Thinking” and Human theorizing (“MEANING”; culture) must be included as well as an inclusion of the physical world. Human Experience is central to all that we know and can know. There are various modes of knowing, and these are appropriate and necessary for the broadest understanding and knowledge about the “nature of reality”.
Within Wholistic Existential Anthropology is a proposal (Number Six) that Health, at every level refers to a principle of Balance. The intention here is to suggest that we understand that any conceiving of “reality” should include a Balance between analytic, logical “Thinking” (and the rules of scientific empiricism) and creating “MEANING” through non-analytic modes of imaging, poeticizing, historicizing, philosophizing, politicizing, culturizing.
The argument put forth here, is that we have compelling evidence that there is a “natural world” independent of Human “Thinking” or knowing about it. However, we don’t have such a world outside of our own Experience of it and not only should our Experience be considered a fundamental aspect of “reality”, our Experience is also intimately embedded in “Physical World” and our world of culture, knowledge, theory and “MEANING”.
Since the question about the “nature of reality” was focused, in this Essay, around the question of the extancy of the “natural world”, there arises a question echoing historical discussions in this area, which grows out of dualistic splitting. This question can be expressed as: “is or isn’t Human Experience a part of the “natural world”. The question is an invitation to more fully appreciate the way of conceiving “reality” that is being proposed for Wholistic Existential Anthropology.
Within the theory, “reality” is a concept referring to “everything there is”. Surely, this includes Human Experience as one aspect of all that is extant. However, within the theory, it is proposed that “reality” is a set of ideas or theoretical conventions which refer to differentiated aspects of all that there is. From this point of view, it is proposed that the concept or idea of Human Experience be thought of as differentiated from the idea of a “natural world” and is an aspect of what is being called “Phenomenological World”. In this sense Human Experience is differentiated theoretically from the idea of a “natural world”.
The answer to the question, “Is or isn’t Human Experience (“Phenomenological World”) a part of or aspect of the “natural world” (physical world independent of Human Thinking)”: “Human Experience is an aspect of “natural world” (and all of what we mean by “reality”) and it is differentiated from or within “natural world” or all that we mean by “reality”.
It is worth reiterating: It is proposed here that the “reality” be conceived as a systemic, dynamic, holistic, inseparable and unified gestalt where all is related to and is interdependent with and affects all and that “reality” also be conceived within a framework of articulated distinctions made linguistically, logically, mathematically, analytically in theories and empirical processes which reach the highest level of Human potentialities in these realms.
In my thinking, the next major question which arises in relation to the conceiving the “nature of reality” within Wholistic Existential Anthropology, is this: “Why is the theory triadic (and not monadic or dual or quaternal or some other number)”? This leads to other, important, related questions: “What is the justification (or evidence to support this structure?” “How might the theory account for the extancy of these three “worlds of reality”?” “How do the three “worlds” relate to one another?” The answer to these questions come out of two concepts essential to the theory: “epiphenomenality” and “co-creation”. These will be discussed in the next essay.
Bibliography
Barbour, Julian. The End of Time: The next revolution in Physics. 1999, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Brian Beakley and Peter Ludlow (eds.). The Philosophy of Mind: Classical Problems/Contemporary Issues. (Second Edition). 2006, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Bruner, Jerome. Acts of Meaning. 1990, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Carroll, Sean The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning and the Universe. 2016, Dutton, New York.
Catapano, Peter and Critchley (eds.) The Stone Reader: Modern Philosophy in 133 Arguments. 2010, Liveright Publishing Corporation: A Division of W. W. Norton & Company New York.
Du Sautoy, Marcus. The Great Unknown: Seven Journeys to the Frontiers of Science. 2016, Viking Press, New York.
Glasersfeld, Ernst von (ed). Key Works in radical Constructivism (Edited by Marie Larochelle). 2007, Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Glasersfeld, Ernst von. Radical Constructivism: A way of Knowing and Learning. 1995, RoutledgeFalmer New York.
Gregory, Bruce. Inventing Reality: Physics as Language. 1988, Wiley Science Editions, John Wiley and Sons Incorporated, New York.
Harman, Graham. Object-Oriented Ontology: A New Theory of Everything. 2018,Pelican Books, Penguin, Random House, UK.
Hawking, Stephen. A Brief History of Time (Updated and expanded edition). 1996, Bantam, Dell, New York. (Original Edition; 1988, Bantam Books, New York.)
Hawking, Stephen. The Universe in a Nutshell. 2001, Bantam Dell, New York.
Hawking, Stephen. The Theory of Everything: The Origin and Fate of the Universe. (Special Anniversary Edition) 2006, Jaico Publishing House, Mumbai. (Based on the original hardcover edition; 2002, New Millennium Press.)
Heidegger, Martin. Being and Time (Translated by John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson from the 1926 German Edition). 1962, Harper and Row Publishers, New York.
Hossenfelder, Sabine. Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray. 2018, Basic Books, New York.
Huxley, Julian. Religion without Revelation,2nd Edition. 1979. Prager, New York. (originally published 1927)
James, William. Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature. 1902, Longmans, Green, and Co. New York.
Krauss, Lawrence M. The greatest Story Ever Told — So Far: why are we here? 2017, Atria Books, New York.
Lao-Tzu. Tao Te Ching. (translated by Stephen Addiss and Stanley Lombardo). 2007, Shambhala, Boston and London.
Lao Tzu. Hua Hu Ching: The Unknown teachings of Lao-Tzu. (Translated by Brian Walker.) 1994, Harper Collins Publisher, New York.
Le Guin, Ursuala. Lao Tzu Tao Te Ching: A Book About the Way AND THE POWER OF THE WAY. A new English Version. 1997, Shambala Publications, Boston, Massachusetts.
May, Rollo; Angel, Ernest; and Ellenberger, Henry F. (eds). Existence: a new Dimension in Psychiatry and Psychology. 1958, Basic Books, New York.
Mitchell, Stephen. tao te ching: A NEW ENGLISH VERSION. 1991, Harper Perennial, Harper Collins Publishers, New York. (1988, Hardcover Edition published by Harper & Row, New York.)
Munger, Kevin. “ The Rise and Fall of the Palo Alto Consensus”. July 10, 2019 Opinion Piece, New York Times.
Neilson, William Allan, PHD, LLD LHD, LittD, (Ed in chief). Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language second edition, unabridged. 1961 G& C Merriam Co. Publishers, Springfield, Mass. Usa
Piaget, Jean. The Origins of Intelligence in Children. 1952, International University Press, New York.
Piaget, Jean. The Child’s Construction of Reality. 1955, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
Rand, Ayn. Atlas Shrugged. 1957, Penguin, New York.
Rosen, Hugh and Kuehlwein, Kevin T. (eds). Constructing Realities: Meaning Making Perspectives for Psychotherapists. 1996, Josey-Bass Inc., San Francisco.
Rovelli, Carlo. Reality is not What it Seems: The Journey to Quantum Gravity. (Translated by Simon Carnell and Erica Segre, 2016; from the Original published 2014 by Rafaela Cortina, Milan) 2017, Riverhead Books, Penguin Random House, New York.
Stern, Harris W. Principles of Wholistic Existential Psychology. 2008, website: HarrisStern.com.
Stern, Harris W. Anxiety from Wholistic Existential Psychology point of view. 2009, Kindle Books Amazon.
Stern, Harris W. If you don’t MIND, I Will. 2010, Kindle Books Amazon.
Stern, Harris W. Anchors Aweigh. 2018, HarrisStern.com,
Stern, Harris W. Ideals. 2015, Newsletter archived on Constant Contact, accessible though HarrisStern.com
Stern, Harris W. Existential Challenges. 2015, Newsletter archived on Constant Contact, accessible though HarrisStern.com
Stern, Harris W. On the Nature of Reality: Wholistic Existential Anthropology, Essay One. 2019 Medium.com June, 2019
Werner, Heinz. Comparative Psychology of Mental Development (revised edition). 1957, International Universities Press, New York.
Yalom, Irvin D. Existential Psychotherapy. 1980, Basic Books, a Division of Harper Collins Publisher, New York.
