Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 13

The capacity in which I am writing to you now is a human capacity, In this capacity I have the apparent fortune to live

in a western society in which survival is not necessarily something which entails a dramatic struggle. I am able to access a great database of streaming information called the Internet, despite being occupied in what could be considered a lower ranking job on the social ladder, namely construction. There is no need to ensure my future survival by means of procreating for the sake of creating future care takers, there is a fairly decent social system in place which acts as a safety net for the instances when someone would be unable to sustain themselves, there is a health care system in place which has the potential to diminish suffering while existing here and, as I mentioned, the general infrastructure is at such a level that most everyone can roam about without to much hassles. There can be, and probably is debate as too what has made this means of existing possible, we call the general opinion currently prevalent consensus, and I would like to venture into what this might mean on a bigger scale then would be initially evident and how the implications of our current consensus might be more far reaching then many are comfortable to admit. To summarize and generalize, I find myself in a western amusement park which despite seeming globalization acts as a secluded community where we let ourselves be governed by outside influences and have little direct influence where and how the results of our productivity are distributed as long as at least part of our contribution is used to sustain our current habitat. Well actually, we don't seem to care much about our ecological habitat because our common social environment does not provoke any reflexive investigation as to what strain our consumption puts on our ecological environment. It can be argued that many people are environmentally aware yet in general, the produce we acquire in stores bears little resemblance to it's original form and the logistical route that it has traveled including the additional resources it requires is not something most are (made) aware of. The debate on climate change which seems to act as a great opportunity to provide entertainment in the form of being opinionated does not seem to provoke the idea that we should take care of our strain on our ecological environment until we have more certainty towards our actual influence. At least it should be clear that the sustainability of an adequate ecological environment involves numerous factors interacting in such complex ways that not taking into account our influence seems quite absurd. It's not that long ago since we didn't even try to hide our atrocities against our own species, at times it has even been the source of great pride and sense of accomplishment. It would be socially unacceptable in most modern countries these days to terminate the lives of others with the simple justification that it could be easily done. Clearly the ability to easily dominate others should imply the vast superiority present within the terminating party and therefore give them the right to take anything that seems appropriate, no? If we go by our own history and the basic principles of survival of the fittest such manners are the appropriate way to roam about our sub par surroundings to our own benefit.

Yet it would seem most would disagree with such behavior nowadays and claim we have evolved beyond it, but have we? Even if such is the case, it would be unwise to forget such a mode of operation has brought us our current state of well being in the not so distant past of which we still benefit. It has given rise to the current state of neo liberal capitalism culture which is such a global dominating force that it is almost impossible to escape it's influence on this planet. Where 60 years ago armies needed to be on the ground to exert influence, in modern days global economic / political influence can make whole countries succumb to measures detrimental to societal sustainability due to the sheer reliance some countries have towards a global economic system. And, although our current means of operating might seem civilized at first, can we be objective enough to ascertain this is actually the case? I would call it highly arrogant to impose our mode of operation towards others on the premise that we know best, where the argument made to justify it is highly similar to using the fact that we are able to do so as justification for it's supposed superiority. I am not going to give any solutions towards many of the issues I will address, I feel our species is dumbed down enough already to venture onto the indoctrination path and I dislike contemplating I have been a source for ammunition which people use to defend their opinions with. Furthermore, I do not mind being a raging hypocrite, somehow I lack the means to suffer from the cognitive dissonance generally evoked when holding a highly critical observation while, at the same time, being an integral part of the cause of critique. I have not studied rhetoric but I am fairly sure there is a name for the argumentative patterns which can come to light in discussions where a person is encouraged to leave it's natural habit through peer pressure after being highly critical about it, the If you're not with us, you're against us argument. The usage of such argumentation should indicate that individual patterns of thought are an intrinsic part of making up a mode of operation or consensus, where I fail to say anything useful about the causation of such observations. Furthermore, I am under no illusion that what I am saying here will actually have any influence. With the advent of modern means of communication the terms shouting in the desert and carrying water to the sea come to mind, and if one where to contemplate it thoroughly it becomes almost wondrous that there are some people still around who's view is appreciated and held in high regard among many. (Outside of sports, obviously). The term selling water by the river could apply also, yet I have to give marketing and pr their due for their accomplishments and accredit them with the implied reference of the term. I am however dumbfounded as to the reason I do attempt to mention anything because to my mind it is incomprehensible that everything I mention is not self evident and blatantly obvious.

It is highly probable that your current level of material comfort depends greatly on cheap labor. This naturally entails that somewhere way outside the scope of your attention, someone is laboring

under sub par conditions so that you and many others along the way can reap the biggest benefits. Now, it is natural to not be occupied by things outside the scope of attention, but can it actually be justified? Personally the only slight justification I could make would involve convincing myself that I am contributing towards a society which is on it's way to become so advanced that we have the means to raise living standards all around the world, only..the means are already there actually, and even worse, at this moment I appear to be highly limited to just taking care of myself....for my own benefit! As with most people in my environment is am partially a casualty of the surroundings I found myself in. Now I could do away with consuming stuff that is the result of cheap labor, yet with the advent of mobile phones, sneakers, clothes, radio, television, furniture, plastic molded utilities, computers and such I would have to go out of my way to achieve such a feat, and in doing so, risk the chance to become an outcast of my habitual environment, never mind the costs. I could claim unsurmountable circumstances hamper my ability to take any meaningful action, yet that would have to involve admitting that I actually have not drastically changed my lifestyle to contribute. And here we slowly come towards a case of cognitive dissonance which is one of the major forces governing many more lives then would be willingly admitted to. If we were truly trying to be civilized and evolve in a meaningful harmonious way with our environment, a simple case of cheap labor should be deemed an issue to the people who are privileged enough to even be able take notice of the concept, it is not a given in many parts of the world to have a capacity in which such issues can be easily reflected upon. It is easy to observe the issue, yet individually it is hard to do something about, it is hard to mentally justify it and it is hard refrain oneself from making use of it. As with many similar examples the easiest solution is not to think about it and even that seems hard to do if I take into account the numerous ways in which spare time can be filled with superfluous activities and the extensive application of such activity. Is there some basic moral premise, instigated by science and the aversion to religion that makes people contemplate that their existence is meaningless and that they therefore seek entertainment because that is something to which they respond to bring about a state of mental well being? If the premise is that life is meaningless then such behavior would be perfectly adequate, yet we tend to be wired to be empathic so at least everyone should be able to join the fun to make it really entertaining, such a notion could almost be deemed meaningful. It should not be a taboo to observe that a lot of human behavior can be explained simply by the drive to seek mental consonance and that entails that uncomfortable mental reflections are preferably avoided. So while it seems natural to prevent being occupied with issues which are glaringly evident but hard to solve operating out of a current framework, why not question the framework? It can be hard to envision the long term development of a whole society, let alone be objective enough to envision human societal development as a mere natural functioning organism, it should however be evident to anyone that adults and society act as an example to their offspring.

So if certain uncomfortable realizations are ignored we are in fact playing a game of make believe with our offspring, denying them an objective view on reality. I am aware children should be protected to a degree from potential traumatic mental events, and in this western amusement park we are privileged to even have this opportunity, yet if too much is withheld, consciously or unconsciously, we are denying them the opportunity to make a meaningful contribution to resolve some of the issues or refrain from contributing until they realize (if at all) for themselves these issues at a point where they are so accustomed to their current paradigm that meaningful change would entail the same implications we currently find so difficult to surpass. If people are unaware of their behavior in this way, they become susceptible to external influence enforcing such behavior and reduce their awareness of their environment. Reducing awareness might seem to be insignificant to some, while others would claim our human awareness is that which distinguishes us as a species from most other species on this planet. If we look at some of the legally available and widely appreciated beverages containing alcohol it should become clear that, when consumed in large enough amounts, our behavior becomes more and more similar to primates ranking a bit lower on the evolutionary ladder as we tend to see it, which should raise the question as to why so many among us prefer to reduce their awareness and make a case for the concept that we really are descendants of 'mere apes' and that our awareness is the main trait which distinguishes us from them. I called the observation of seeking mental consonance as a big influence on human behavior a taboo, which would imply it is not something which is fairly evident, but also not something completely unknown. If we for a moment take into consideration again the numerous superfluous activities with which we are able to entertain ourselves and reduce our awareness, would it be a radical idea to contemplate that there are many benefiting from this behavioral trait of humankind in numerous ways and have a stake into keeping it that way? And how many would be willing to admit to admit that other's could potentially have insights in human behavior with which they have been influencing your whole life without you taking notice? I would guess such a mental contemplation could provoke a lot of cognitive dissonance. When we look at our society as a secluded western amusement park, it should be obvious that it is beneficial to the ones exerting the biggest influence within it to have a generally accepted consensus because peer pressure is an impressive tool to influence societies with and once established, it requires little actual involvement, it's a self sustaining instrument of sorts. If this consensus can instigate a degree of consonance within it's population, meaning that the general public is contend and comfortable, they have a stake to defend their current position and change, especially radical, becomes something which is undesired. Change can become so undesirable that it becomes contended to an irrational degree. It should be obvious that many people are under the impression that the developments which have brought us our current well being, let's say from the industrial revolution onwards is mostly a linear affair and have no reason to contemplate that the future might present a drastic departure from what they are accustomed to, despite the cyclic nature of everything we

perceive around us or the many,many rises and falls of previous civilizations. Even with an educational system which mentions previous civilizations and their demise, it somehow seems to fail to occur to most that such an event is a possibility within their lifespan. To continue on the educational systems, despite their obvious benefits to society as a whole, it does not evoke critical self reflection which, too my mind, is so desperately needed in this age. There are numerous trajectories to be followed in school and almost all of them will eventually lead to a means of functioning adequately within our current society. Some critical thought is encouraged, yet usually only after a framework of expertise is established within which this critical thought can be applied. Furthermore, a basic welfare system which can provide food and shelter for even the most unfortunate within a society is, aside from just being civilized, a great means to acquire the consent of those whose mouths you feed. Many of the above mentioned are actually due to the nature of humankind and it's quest to become civilized, I actually think most humans are basically good people and a lot which has been accomplished has been done out of noble ideologies, yet is it realistic to see the ones who posses the greatest influence as being noble, distinguished and driven by humanitarian ideology? Despite it being a depressing realization, I am willing to admit that it might be possible that the natural tendencies present in a human being and therefore within me have been put to good use to play me for a fool without me even noticing it by much smarter people then me who probably carry a very different agenda then many would prefer to fathom. Evenly depressing is realizing that many are incapable to contemplate this option when all the direct implications to their existence are taking into account fully and provoke cognitive dissonance. We can make an entertaining circus on voting for the ones who should govern our amusement park, yet is there any recourse to change the method of governing? If there is no critical inquiry into how we ourselves operate we, again, become susceptible to outside influences which in this case makes us so dependent on a framework we are unable to operate without it. Concerning the traits which can be generally be attributed to the ones in positions of great influence, I would just state that the ones who are in positions of great power and influence are the least suitable to occupy such positions..generally. Yet as we all are, they also are a product of their environment, so how are certain traits nourished? In the operating framework currently present in our western amusement park it is almost inevitable to succumb to a desire to achieve within it. There are set parameters which are preferable and if there are great accomplishments within these parameters, these accomplishments are highly appreciated by numerous peers, giving a sensation that they are highly important along with all sorts of other benefits. Social belonging, influence, opportunity, etc. It's a self reinforcing behavioral cycle which is a natural part of human behavior. Nobody would go running with a ball for a set distance if there was no reward for it in some form and if thousands of peers would be shouting to encourage you, the impression that what you are doing

would actually matter becomes something which is almost undeniable. Accompanied by the He / She who dies with the most toys wins saying which tends to really suit our materialistic outlook should make it fairly easy to discern how some of the behavioral traits we pretend to despise come about. Within a material frame of reference, if material wealth is acquired to a great extent, it can be put to good use to acquire even more and apply it to exert influence and all the while the environment, either due to being influenced by a share of said accumulated wealth, the prospect of it or the sheer desire for it enforces the importance of such common goals by peers Now I am under the impression that some competition is beneficial to a society, if only to act as a natural selection to let people end up in appropriate places suited to their capacity, but if we as mankind do not take into consideration what kind of environment we are a part of it stands to reason that there will be more people with megalomaniac and narcissistic tendencies then are actually desired for the harmonious functioning of the human organism. Intelligence can also be put to great use within this context and be used to influence people without their conscious awareness of it. And similarly, once a prime directive is installed intelligence can even be a hindrance toward objectivity and the ability to reflect on oneself. Also our educational systems tend to fabricate experts in all sorts of fields and there is no good reason to refrain from contemplating that highly intelligible people are filtered out early on in their trajectory to join a circle of like minded people who are in the habit of using their influence on their environment for their personal gain while being fully aware how easily people can be manipulated and thereby enforcing their means of occupying the positions of great influence while at the same time eliminating competition through assimilation. One may wonder if there is even an option for some people in positions of great influence who can be greatly criticized by the general public at times to seek recourse for their behavior. Once the framework on which they are dependent and able to navigate through is established fully, changing their own situation in response to recognition of their own potential negative influence might prove to be a more insurmountable hurdle then most people find when they have caught themselves in a 'catch 2' situation. One may also wonder how so many people propagate free market enterprise while being unaware that this entails almost entirely the competition side of things while hugely under emphasizing the natural equilibrium that should be naturally sought after. Globally operating corporations act as single entity's and as such occupy positions of great influence. The prime directive installed in most corporations is to generate increasing profits, yet they cannot be held responsible for immoral actions the way most humans can. It would seem that the total of the workers in a given corporation should comprise a moral conscious. Sort of like a neural network. Yet most workers in a corporation have a set framework in which they operate, they are giving a capacity to function within and the limits are generally pre set for them to become the best little wheel they can be given a certain position, with a chance to evolve into a more important wheel

under the guise of increased rewards. This includes managers who I will describe in this context as the oil between the many wheels. Further up in the corporative hierarchy the people with actual influence towards the heading of said corporation are either judged by market forces mainly competition or stakeholders who tend to expect increased profits. So despite the potential for corporations to have a functioning moral compass, it is not made use of. There could be offense taken that in supposedly democratic parts of the world, highly influential corporations act as totalitarian entities without any moral principles. Recourse for unacceptable behavior tends to rely on external governing bodies giving penalties in the form of taking away generated profits, which does nothing to provoke actual responsibility. Actions taking after being penalized can even comprise of using influence to fine tune governing bodies in a way which makes their behavior appear to be acceptable or making the task of the governing bodies so complicated that they need experts which are only fabricated in said corporations. Other means of recourse would involve the use of marketing forces which corporations depend upon to accomplish their prime directives. If demand would comprise of harmoniously created produce and only be bought if said corporations acts in a responsible way it would likely oblige to such market conditions. Such a way creating apparent functional behavior is however highly similar to using indoctrination in a way it can be / is used to guide individual people / societies. It does little to tackle the actual problem, it only tames the beast for now.... And again, one could wonder why a democratic operation of corporations is suddenly called: socialism. Concerning the manager function in any entity, if operating wheels need oil, they should be oiled. If the wheels are turning smoothly a proper manager should abolish it's current function to shave of unnecessary weight for even smoother operation, yet this is unlikely to happen. This should give an insight toward a natural inability to give up influence voluntarily. If a managing function has become an unnecessary feature it starts to resemble marketing in the sense that their function is something of which the necessity needs to be propagated. If a high level of expertise is reached and accompanied with specific jargon, the task of claiming to occupy a vital function within a corporation becomes easier and results in the potential of increased influence which is generally taken advantage of to a great extent. I have tried to illustrate that our frame of reference and the awareness we can have of operating within it is a crucial part in our functioning and that it is this cognitive capacity which distinguishes us as unique mammals on this planet. With the advent of the scientific method new possibilities have opened up and have been made us of extensively. Yet if this scientific method is seen as something of itself and not a function of our own cognitive capacities it becomes an external governing force which acts very similar to religion on a mental level. Although science has proposed that we are fairly limited to what we can perceive in the sense that we appear to have a human interpretable experience of something else, I am at a loss why such a notion has not brought a more general sense of relativity, not in the Einstein sense,

but in the sense of having a personally relevant subjective experience and being aware of that. It would seem that like spiritual / religious concepts, the scientific method can be applied to our frame of reference in different ways. It can be used to impose a notion of an ultimate reality which should be taken into account into current operation and it can be used to negate our personally relevant but seemingly subjective experience. Although it could provoke cognitive dissonance it should be realized that we have a limited capacity towards what we can bring into our frame of reference in a comprehensible manner. Coincidence therefore cannot be used in an absolute sense because there is a possibility that we do not yet or maybe never will comprehend potential governing principles which could be at work. As a cognitive capacity which, with it's empirical method, is able to bring mankind a new level of objectivity, science is very worthwhile and brings us practical knowledge which, until recently, was the stuff of fiction. It is however first and foremost a cognitive capacity, it might be universally applicable and has the potential to even act as a universal language of sorts if we were to come across (hopefully) civilized extra terrestrial cognitive beings. We are able to divide the enormous stream of information we can perceive into bits which we then give an individual indication and in doing so create the capacity to observe patterns of interaction which we then can try to reproduce to confirm our observations, it's a great accomplishment of humankind. Yet it fails to indicate anything about the way we internally experience anything in the sense that describing, for instance, the holocaust as mere chemical reactions would be greatly missing the point. With the advent of advanced neuroscience, psychoanalysis, cognitive sciences and the logical market derived outcome called neuro advertising I plead humanity to take notice of their cognitive capacities. If you lack self awareness you grant others the opportunity to misuse information to influence you into behavior of which you might be under the impression that it is your natural behavior. (Where I must admit that such a concept could already be at hand at this point if the knowledge and technology that is available is advanced enough). Such potential scenario's where a whole human experience could potentially be simulated strike similarities with Buddhist and Zen doctrines in which it is proposed that the nature of our current reality is illusory, and although I would propagate objectivity and self relativity, it should give an indication that reality, for all that can be speculated about it, is that to which anyone is inclined to respond to physically, emotionally and mentally. So although science and religions have the potential to provoke a level of objectivity towards one's own current experience, and such objectivity could be used to relieve cognitive dissonance, I would advise to use objectivity as the framework from which one is able to engage fully in their personally relevant experience. The generating of experts and the scientific way in which we seem to divide our human landscape into single area's of expertise is starting to create new problems which are not yet as easily observed as they should be. If a general population is not encouraged to widen their scope on certain issues, a crucial basic understanding of their practical reality is replaced by outsourced knowledge which might

appear to be far superior, yet lacks practical application. This generates less responsibility and less engagement and might possibly be detrimental towards the general quality of life if a social / occupational environment is streamlined in such a manner that diversification is no viable option to most, in essence making it a linear moving prison of sorts. For instance psychoanalysis can provide a service very beneficial towards those with an actual biological impairment, yet if a highly trained expert (which more often then not encompasses being highly convinced of a current scientific consensus on the subject at hand) has the ability to impress with astute insights accompanied with it's own technical jargon, it encourages people to give up responsibility for their own experience and is detrimental to the potential of self reflecting honestly. Despite all the analysis which has been done on human behavior, every individual has their own front row seat which usually poses the best view on their experience. In my own occupation as a construction worker I can observe on an almost daily basis how the supposedly knowledgeable ones higher up in the sector hierarchy enforce theoretical idea's which do not suit the practical reality in the actual working space. Also if a higher level of expertise / intelligence is rewarded more generously and the narrowing of the field becomes greater, the options of recourse for lower ranking 'subjects' becomes less and less and the responsibility and justification for a greater reward becomes an issue of personal morality which, unfortunately, opens up the possibility for a simple transfer of wealth, or sometimes also called fraud. In my personal view I find it hard to justify that a single brilliant idea can be rewarded to such an extent that it comprises a portion of material wealth / influence which equals the reward thousands of people make together in their total occupational life. The best examples of these above observations can be found in our current economic sector. We claim we live in a free / democratic society where it is supposedly possible to have a say in our governing bodies and with that, have a form of recourse in holding governing bodies responsible if they do not perform their task of acting in the benefit of the general population, supposedly.... I have not mentioned money yet because it can easily be seen as something of itself rather then the interchangeable medium it actually is, although due to it's necessary treatment as something of itself it is susceptible to manipulation, either directly or through inflation. I'd like to use the term material wealth / influence because at this current point that is a more realistic way of looking at it. Due to a narrowing field of expertise and it's increasing complexity, financial corporations have been able to create complex financial instruments. The global derivatives market currently comprises a figure which even according to low estimates comprises eleven times that of global GDP. Even with the supposedly cross cancellations which should come to apply in the event of actual mutation into material wealth / influence of these derivatives,they would still comprise a multiple of global GDP. This would entail simply that financial institutions currently have the greatest amount of material wealth / influence where the only recourse the general population has to force responsible behavior is through their governing bodies which might already be influenced to a great degree by the material

wealth / influence of said corporations. It would deem it undemocratic if an entity is able to acquire near unlimited material wealth / influence without the ability to be held responsible by the general population, yet if such would be the case, it would called socialism. These observations are not nice to contemplate by any means, but it should be observable by anyone privileged enough to inform themselves. It stands to reason many have done so and as is natural to do so in these instances, refrain from thinking about it, which would also have direct implications in the voting participations in our supposedly democratically organized systems of governing. I have already made the observation that we have no actual recourse towards our system of governing, aside from forcefully doing so, taking into account the majority acting as a whole has such an ability although the realization of such recourse appears to be unlikely. And at this point it would be naive to not take into account the use of influence present by the entities holding a great amount of it towards their own benefit. We have given our governing bodies the exclusive rights to use violence domestically and internationally to grant them the ability to protect the interests of the general population, in principle anyway. I am not against a basic ability to seek recourse through physical violence in extreme cases of physical aggression, yet we should honestly reflect on what makes us determine when such is actually the case. As a general population with a central doctrine / consensus and a border limiting this doctrine we appear to do take ourselves as an example in the sense that we expect that, given the opportunity, differing doctrines held by other societal populations will enforce their doctrine if given the chance. Looking at, especially America's military, we must conclude that such a possibility is quite unrealistic. The technological advancements which western doctrine has made possible effectively rules out recourse for any other doctrine, where nuclear history can show us a great deal how we as a species operate with implied aggression in the form of possessing superior defense capabilities. Fortunately up till this point we have become civilized enough to not annihilate our own species, where mutual benefits and influence acquired through possessing nuclear capabilities seems to be a more likely reason then actual civilization. Up till this point, the because we can doctrine still provides our justification for many aspects of our behavior where our seclusion from other doctrines is based on the fear of others following our example, which is unfortunately, partly justified. Civilization therefore is currently more akin to masking the underlying tendencies in favor of emphasizing the result of those tendencies, much like the produce in stores which shares little resemblance to their original origin. Also claiming we reside in a secluded western amusement park should not be seen as a bold statement.(It does mostly apply to the capacity from which I am speaking and with western I mean America, the UK and Europe which, in effect exert their influence globally).

So where I feel it is vital for the sake of evolving civilization that everyone individually reflects and contemplates how their individual train of thought might be a key part in the way we move as a whole society / human organism, I would make the complete opposite observation towards the path our sciences appear to be venturing onto. There seems to be a focus on the smaller and smaller individual bits which should then inform us about the behavior on a bigger scale, and while such a mode of inquiry can tell us a great deal and has the potential of leading to new technology it appears to become a mode of linear operation which is too highly emphasized and looking at our nuclear technology, the way most of us cannot do without modern means of communication and the way we divide the benefits of our produce over this planet, there can be an argument made towards our capability to use more and more elaborate technology. The scientific consensus claims to be knowledgeable about the origins of the Universe, yet fails to properly explain lightning, never mind attempt to explain the tree like pattern anyone not looking through a microscope can observe and which shares profound similarities with the way a tree branches or how human arteries branch in our limbs. I am not proposing that current scientific consensus is wrong, yet I propose the focus is such so that potential governing patterns are overlooked and that the lack of knowledge on subjects we all deal with should provoke a certain humbleness towards subjects we claim are fully understood. Supernovae are used extensively to inform us about the way our Universe appears to work, yet there is no consensus on why they form intricate, unique and often symmetrical patterns while exploding. We can all see the similarities between patterns of snow crystals and the pictures generated in studies concerning the correlation of sound / vibration and it's observable effect in an excitatory medium called 'cymatics', yet these observations do not generally provoke inquiry from mainstream science and the obviousness of these correlations has generated so much attention by layman that the subject apparently has become one of ridicule. Again, I am not proposing we cannot use any of the gathered knowledge so far, yet propose the focus might be narrowing too much to be able to inquire into the potential governing principles which appear to be present. Our own cognitive functioning is often described as a behavioral feature, while it is already acknowledged that our visual cognitive systems act like a filtering mechanism with which we coherently perceive visual information. This should provoke the realization that we are able to distinguish specie relevant patterns out of a general stream of information, which comprises a great deal of our cognitive perception which is needed before we can even apply behavioral traits. As with making the case for science being a cognitive capacity, language appears to reside in the same league of cognitive capacities. We are able to interpret and express patterns of audible / visible singular bits into something which can then be coherently relayed internally and externally. Meaning is created by the degree to which something is relevant to our functional experience. If we look at music as another cognitive capacity it should become obvious that it is highly dependent on things like resonance, dissonance, harmony, and the pattern like way in which audible tones are distributed makes us able to perceive it as something relevant to our current experience, yet these well studied subjects are generally not seen as correlating with anything outside the scope of our cognitive perception nor is there any correlation made towards our other cognitive capacities.

If anyone can observe sound as a vibrational pattern or frequency which has the ability to interact and create other patterns we should at least take notice of the cyclical nature present in a big part of our observable Universe and the frequencies it is thereby responding to / creating, where we are severely limited by our attention span in making a coherent observation which we can frame into our currently relevant experience. Taking into account our average lifespan, our earth might not be turning very fast, yet if we were to live for millions of years on a very slowly revolving planet, the whizzing around of earth could very well be perceived as a very high frequency. When we take into account our currently relevant experience, our cognition of it involves self awareness or consciousness. We have human specific self awareness which is vital in distinguishing us from the rest of the Universe. Objectively, the main difference between an ant and a human is that we are able to narrate our experience to a near unlimited extent and as such this capacity is therefore a priori to any questioning that might arise. Questioning has been done and if we take into account the result of that in a manner where we appear to exist in an evolving Universe we could conclude that we are currently the result of it, where with we I mean our human specific cognitive capacity. It should be fairly obvious we are limited in our cognitive capacities so while we can form a concept like consciousness we must take into account we are limited in our perception of other potential forms of consciousness by the degree to which we can coherently relate to the information we are able to perceive. It would seem arrogant to exclude any potential cognitive capacity or potential form of consciousness merely on the basis that it cannot be communicated to us.(You can try to explain that to an ant and see what I mean). Likewise it is highly probable such limitations will hamper our attempts to use our empirical method to give us relevant information on potential characteristics of consciousness seeing that any interacting system at any scale of size / time has the potential to include a form of cognition aside from a human specific form of cognition where the issue of causation is even more problematic. What can be concluded at this point is that our currently relevant experience appears to comprise of our seemingly individual conscious cognition of the interaction between a subject and object, and there is no reason to assume that this experience is not susceptible to evolving. This evolving on the short term could (hopefully) comprise of us as species actually becoming civilized beings where I have the personal view that this needs to involve questioning our framework and face uncomfortable observations where the adagethe first step into solving a problem is acknowledging there is one and Einstein's quote no problem can be solved by the consciousness that created it are applicable. We have quite a way to go if we look at the mental contraptions that people need to invoke when dealing with things as 'death'. Every night people go to sleep and are only able to conclude anything about their state of consciousness when they wake again, yet despite this happening every day throughout one's life there are a lot of people under the impression that in the case of death such a

principle will not apply. In their mental contraptions there can be all sorts of other realities experienced yet they fail to notice that if their currently relevant experience changes drastically, it might not be related to anymore as a human specific experience and there is a high probability that relaying anything about such a potential experience has become incomprehensible towards a human specific and relevant experience. Most people have no conscious recollection of their first years on this planet, mainly because they then lacked the cognitive capacity the are able to use now.

Похожие интересы