Where Ontology and Epistemology Meet
Epistemology (on knowledge) and ontology (on being) coalesce in the following statement: “phenomena are being experienced".
One of the few things we can know with absolute certainty (episteme) is that there exists an “experiencer” who is experiencing something. Our self-awareness proves this fact by the simple act of observing our own experience.
If you don’t believe this consider the fact that THIS experience is occurring — the experience you are presently having (which is, presumably, a consideration of this article). The mere fact of this experience proves the existence of an experiencer (observer) as well as that of the experience being had (phenomena).
This however does not infer knowledge about actual events in reality. Common experiences (e.g. daily and annual cycles) provide convincing evidence of reality but our ability to accurately perceive these things remains limited. Events are routinely experienced and interpreted differently by different individuals. But this does not mean there's room in this universe for more than one actuality.
Yes, it’s fashionable in some circles to discuss “my reality” as if it were somehow different from “your reality”. But that’s not reality. Reality is “the state of things as they actually are”. You may see things differently than I do. But that’s merely a matter of perspective.
We are without exception all blind people groping to describe the elephant. Each of us thinks we know what it is but we come at it from differnt angles and see different images of it.
Can we find some comfort in the knowledge that we’re having a hard time figuring out exactly what is real? If we know that reality is beyond our knowing then we might feel better knowing that it's not for us to know.
At no prior time has it become more obvious that we are having difficulty as a species coming to agreement as to what is going on. Everyone lives in their own bubble of information about the elephant and there are so many different bubbles out there we may as well each have our own custom bubble with our very own personal image of the elephant in question.
I wonder if periods of apparent agreement regarding reality might better be seen as shared delusions. Has anyone ever been able to get a grip on reality? Certainly some have done better than others but even our best efforts have produced more questions than answers.
Our finest sciences - hailed as the pinnacle of objective analysis are now all in crisis: mathematics has discovered that all mathematical systems contain true statements that cannot be proven, physics has tied itself in a knot trying to preserve gravitational theories of cosmic order and has abandoned any hope of understanding in the face of quantum mechanics.
We exist in societies that have lost the ability to make sense of the world and increasingly we see the desperation of nihilism (no belief in anything) taking hold of the youth. How do we restore a sense meaning, recover the real and know what can be known?
Taoism is based upon the concept of what is often translated as “the way”. Reality is the way things really are (not as we want them to be or even as they often seem). Taoism offers this essential insight: “the way that can be named is not the eternal way”. This might be rephrased as “ideas of reality are not absolute reality”. Ideas exist within the realm of experience and are merely descriptions of reality. We create these ideas from bits and pieces of our experiences - the ones that we believe correspond with reality.
But reality is not the only thing that is. An image in cønsciousness exists experientially whether it refers to an actual reality or not. It takes a lot of careful attention to clearly distinguish where things occur.
There are three domains under consideration here:
1) that of the observer
2) that of the experience being had by the observer
3) that of actual reality
The observer exists as the root processor for all experience. If the observer did not exist then nothing could be experienced. Experiences exist by virtue of the fact that they happen to an observer. It doesn’t matter what the content of the experience is — it exists as experience whether it corresponds with reality or not.
When experiences correspond with reality they become the basis for our understanding. Humanity has learned just about everything we know by aligning ourselves with the apparent world of real phenomena.
But ironically, reality is not as real to us as our own confused experience.
Some may have developed a comparatively functional picture of what’s going on in reality. But how many times have we jumped on a bandwagon only to discover alarming flaws the moment the road gets bumpy?
We are easily fooled by our own ideas. An accurate portrayal of our circumstance must highlight the inherent limits to our understanding.
Humans are humble creatures. We have limited sense capability. We occupy tiny bits of space and time. Our languages have allowed us to develop an evolving understanding but we are only dimly aware of what was understood a hundred years ago never mind a thousand. None are able to absorb any but a small fragment of what's contained within the monstrous mountain of information we’ve accumulated.
Information technology has extended storage and processing capability — but only in the abstract. Yes, we have incredibly sensitive instruments capable of penetrating realms we had previously never imagined to have existed. But now we are burdened with ever larger galaxies of data and are increasingly relying on artificial intelligence to make sense of it. There's no hope of us making sense of it ourselves.
The observer is enveloped by its limited experience within all-encompassing reality. The membrane between experience and reality is “sense” which is mediated by a body. The membrane between observer and experience is “self” which is mediated by a mind.
From the observer’s POV it’s impossible to conclusively determine whether reality is actual or just a simulation. It’s for this reason that the observer and its experience are the foundation for all epistemological considerations. What could be possibly known without a cønscious observer?
To recap: Observers exist because observation is occurring. From an ontological point of view it doesn’t matter what’s being observed — only that the observer happens to be experiencing something. Experiences exist because they are happening to an observer. Ontologically it doesn’t matter whether the experience corresponds to anything in reality— it only matters that the experience is happening to an observer.
Consider experiences that consist of representations with no correspondence to any actual reality. A TV show is real in the sense that it is produced, transmitted and viewed. But the observer’s experience of the show is of the representations within the show. These representations occur within experience and not within reality.
On the TV show “The Deuce” a character named Lori Madison shoots herself in the head. The viewers experience the image of this wretched girl shooting herself in the head. But in reality this did not happen. In reality it was a very convincing actress pretending to shoot herself in the head. We saw the blood and felt the emotional shock of an event that never occurred in reality. It only occurred within experience. We had the “real” experience of bearing witness to a suicide although the actual event was a fiction — a production concocted by a team of talented dramatists and technicians.
The experience of what happens in a dramatic scene is not real — but the experience of watching the show is real.
When we sit and watch a show we feel as if we are experiencing the drama between characters. But in reality we are sitting watching the transformation of representations (“simulacra”).
If you’re having trouble understanding this distinction you are not alone. It’s a confusing state of affairs that produces a great deal of confusion. This may explain why we were warned by the ancients against idol worship and the production of images.
Our common experience is the basis for our understanding of reality. We rely on each other to verify what we’re perceiving and to give us feedback on the ideas we’re developing. But information from others is merely another form of experience.
While the sun is out we agree it’s daytime. Later when the sun has set we agree it’s night. Similar consensual experiences on a vast array of phenomena have given us a vague grip on reality. But time and again when we think we’ve got a hold on it, it slips right through our fingers.
It was once generally agreed that the sun moved around the earth. Most of us today believe the earth moves around the sun. There’s also a general consensus on what causes the sun to shine. Most scientists think it’s a nuclear fusion reactor. But an increasing number of scientific thinkers think the sun is electrical and some recent experiments suggest they may be onto something. But even if the electric model proves successful likely it will only be a matter of time before it too falls to the wayside.
Einstein was deeply uncomfortable with quantum mechanics because it suggested a universe that made no sense. This is what led Richard Feynman to quip: “if you think you understand quantum mechanics you don’t understand quantum mechanics”. New efforts to interpret quantum theory have led serious scientists to propose that every possibility within every possible universe actually exists (the “many worlds” interpretation). Are we confident that we’re getting closer to an understanding of reality here?
The lame joke “what is reality?” points to the uncomfortable fact that we are findamentally unable to agree on this most basic question.
No matter the sophistication of our method of observation we are terminally circumscribed to the world of the observer/experience. We are forced to rely on (often confusing) evidence to get a picture of what might actually exist because no observer can directly perceive reality. The observer is severely limited by its experience (sense) and capacity of mind (memory, imagination). This tripartite arrangement (sense, memory, imagination) of cønsciousness is what (I believe) is represented by the ancient symbolic system of the trigrams:
The ideas from this initial Trigram Paper is discussed in depth on this YouTube channel.
We have an uncanny capacity to delude ourselves into thinking we’ve got a handle on things. And despite our significant achievements we are (as a civilization/species) far from developing any meaningful consensus on reality.
The fact that we’ve created powerful technologies in no way signifies we’re heading in the right direction. Our technologies cause serious problems for ourselves and the natural environment within which we live. This suggests that we’ve made some grave errors in our understanding of reality.
With some humility and introspection we might reconsider some of our basic assumptions and potentially reformulate a better picture of reality but Western public discourse has degenerated beyond repair.
If we fail to find a better way all is not lost. At the very least none of us ever need be alienated from the knowledge of the existence of the observer within us — the sole soul we were given to experience this one reality — whatever the heck reality actually is. Reality will always remain the ultimate black box. We’ll be lucky if we can continue to formulate reasonably consistent pictures of it.
The many troubling crises presently confronting us might best be described as an inability to formulate a coherent picture of reality (whether in politics, business/economics, science or spirituality).
A consistent picture of reality relies upon some set of relatively consistent cyclical experiences enough of us can recognize and utilize as an anchor for the formation of consensus.
If our technologies end up disrupting reality to the extent that they disturb underlying natural cyclical experiences — we may lose the ability to form a coherent picture of reality.
We had better do what we can to get this right. Step one (imho) is developing a humble attitude towards what we think we know.
