Nothing in this upcoming theory is “true.”
It doesn’t offer any sort of “ultimate truth,” only a way of seeing things you might find useful.
If you do choose to let yourself see things this way for a little while, the world might feel different in a way that you like.
What’s on offer is a feeling of understanding and compassion along with awareness of what other people believe. A pretty rational route is taken to arrive at what a lot of people think is a fruity and spiritual goal. Maybe an unreasonably lofty goal:
Feeling good about your fellow man while seeing her warts and all.
This theory, like all theories, is best when played with and not taken seriously. Try this:
“What happens when I see the world this way? What do I notice then? What does it feel like?”
It’s worth noting, a paradox was involved in its creation. It was originally, many years ago, meant to be taken incredibly seriously. As the neuronal stormclouds gathered in a brain and the lightning bolts shot this way and that, the brain took this activity very seriously. It was a search for a method of discovering objective reality, and all that jazz.
However, here is a fact science points out, while often clinging to a status quo and simultaneously stumbling over the same fact:
You cannot simultaneously cling to a hypothesis or explanation and find out what’s really true.
If you try that, the Earth remains flat. You’ve taken your whole “flat-earth idea” seriously, so you know you’ve got to turn your boat around before you get to the edge.
The best thing a theory can provide, is a new and useful way of seeing the world that lets you see new relationships within it. The earth moves around a sun, which is in motion as well. Entertain yourself with more.
The Compassionate Theory of Everything now exists inside a brain that is attempting to limit and distort it back into words. The challenge is to somehow describe, in English, the origin and nature of various belief systems without using only the lexicon of a specific belief system. It’s not a psychological theory, because it does not assert that your thoughts and will exist only in a “mind.” Nor is it biology, because cell walls cannot contain the collective unconscious. The choice of words to describe the origin and nature of many disciplines is tough, because one will not suffice. This would limit the others unnecessarily or distort the intended non-judgmental meaning behind the theory.
All belief systems may be seen in such a way that seemingly-exclusive perspectives are understood to emerge from a place that exists in all human beings.
The possible utility of this, should other brains be interested in the construct, is a pragmatic understanding of shared humanity despite wildly differing perspectives.
This understanding of all “ways of understanding the world” came largely by way of a search for “what people care about” in talking with tens of thousands of people. These people came from different backgrounds. Their nature was different. They had different life experiences. Their nurture was different. Their diction was unique to the individual, so their ways of describing what they cared about was necessarily singular. Yet, over time, patterns emerged.
The advantage this man had in his own interpretation of these patterns was a lack of discipline.
Specifically, with no social bonds to any specific academic culture, no specific paradigm was applied with any consistency. Instead of the repeated application of one belief system in the process of interpretation, a broad-based skepticism was applied.
Critical analysis was performed from a standpoint of various theologies and philosophies found in literature, biology textbooks, self-help books, religious texts, psychological theories and mythologies of many kinds. For what comprised “the first half” of the theory, the unavoidable application of personal values of anti-superficiality and anti-materialism, comprising a resultant belief in something essentially “soul like” in humanity, were applied. The theory was completed from the opposing standpoint.
Various theoretical constructs were used to interpret the patterns of “what people care about,” by way of the basic notion that “words represent and internal map of the world.” The way people describe their fear and desire indicates the construction of a sort of model of reality that every human being makes in their heads. The patterns of “what people care about” were analyzed in terms of their nature and origin in physics, psychology and biology.
The big question:
“In what ways can all belief in truth be interpreted as congruent with existing paradigms of understanding the universe as a whole?”
The goal was to make the worldviews and behavior of mankind entirely compatible with all things that may be observed to be “real.” A distinct lack of exceptionalism was pursued. Though physics describes a strictly calculable and measurable world of objects, and psychology describes expressed belief as a form of behavior, each does attempt to explain the “how” of what happens in the “same real world” of “objective reality.”
All searches for truth, be they ostensibly spiritual or empirical in nature, diverge from an origin in man.
Psychological origin? The origin of truth, on one end of the theories of psychology, lies in man’s non-physical soul as it quests for meaning. Viktor Frankl’s logotherapy represents this elegant and ultimately theological standpoint.
The other end is crisply delineated by the behaviorism of B.F. Skinner, which would describe all belief systems as the result of operant conditioning on a human nervous system, a process that may ultimately seen as entirely physical.
Even among the most devout of religious folk, there are few who would claim that God spoke directly to them in English. Some form of interpretation into meaning is involved in all human pursuits of truth. A human being may conceive of God or of atomic particles reaching far into space, yet both conceptions arise from the same point. This point exists in space as well, perhaps a few centimeters to the left or right of the corpus collosum.
The issue one faces in attempting to “interpret patterns in common of all subjective realities,” is that in their analysis none of their specific lexicons may be used to encompass them without significant distortion.
Rather, to see such patterns with a form of linguistically-unbiased clarity, a repeated process of “un-labeling” must be applied. To evaluate the process by which people imagine an endless variety of differing things to be “good” or “evil,” a lack of personal bias must be pursued. Essentially, this requires a process of bringing conscious biases to light and then reasoning from an opposing bias. This is a required step in an honest attempt to understand all belief systems.
A human form of consciousness, subject to the same fundamental processes as any other human consciousness, is necessarily used to consciously survey these processes in others. There is a fractal nature to this.
Judgment of Falsehoods and Dangerous Belief
For the purpose of understanding, the urge to classify as “pathological,” or to judge for or against the moral judgments of a system of thought, must be avoided even in its protean state. “Emotive conjugation” or “Russell conjugation” must be acknowledged by the person performing analysis.
In a practical sense, as such emotional response cannot be avoided yet must be accounted for, this requires a systematic application of bias both “for” and “against.” One whose beliefs are “pigheaded” and “false” must be seen as “obstinate” and then finally as if they were “firm” and “true.”
While this would seem to be a rather deliberate creation of “moral relativism” by which the “center” of one’s own perspectives might be lost, the process creates instead a useful form of individual clarity. Although it becomes no longer possible to judge the world strictly by way of “goodness” or “evil,” as these constructs are revealed to be highly individual while sharing patterns among social groups, the values which create these judgments within groups are illuminated.
The observer becomes keenly aware of his own values through a process of comparison and contrast, while simultaneously losing the perspective that these values as interpreted are, or should be, universal.
In brief, the Compassionate Theory of Everything describes mankind as a form of “Animal with Extra,” that “Extra” being a surplus of consciousness that amounts to a God-like capacity.
Importantly, this description has the ability to offend each and every American, should they so choose.
Those who believe in Christian descriptions of the nature and origin of man, may take issue at the label of “animal.”
Those who believe in a non-theistic description of mankind’s nature and origin, may ruffle at the very mention of “God.”
In unifying all theories the boundaries of each are necessarily crossed.
The theory does not “prove” or “disprove” the existence of God. It does describe the way in which a powerful form of consciousness may exert a form of will over all human beings, while at the same time granting each of them the ability to choose.
The theory does not “prove” or “disprove” the existence of a mechanistic set of rules by which all human behavior and belief might be seen as the result of a random and uncaring universe.
The theory does describe the nature and origin of a choice between these basic and seemingly-contradictory worldviews.
The choice to see agency in life’s events, and find meaning in them, is facilitated by the CTOE, not obstructed. Its purpose is to simplify and ease the process in a way that also helps us to understand and celebrate the same process in others.