A Short Proposal of Epistemology

by Bogomil

As the correct approach to belief-systems is an important aspect of Metahistory, I would like to bring up the subject of epistemology. Considering the new amount of information received from science, certain religions and experiments in states of consciousness I feel, that an updated kind of epistemology is needed. So here are my suggestions.

First a few general comments. What I present here isn't revolutionary as such, maybe the method even exists already. The main idea is an adaption of the structuralism used in cultural anthropology. Also, this system will not produce absolute truths, but it can give good approximations of truth in many areas.

Signals and Structure

It has been suggested, that the uni/multiverse isn't "real". It's a dream, an illusion, a hologram, "mindstuff", Samsara, Maya etc., and I would like to start with that scenario, because it's the most complicated of our present possibilities. If we can find any functional epistemologically method in this situation, the other possibilities shouldn't be so difficult. Take the possibility, that everything we experience is "unreal" (including ourselves): it means fundamentally, that we can't trust any information completely. The other scenarios should be easy after that.

One way of looking at existence is to consider it consisting of "signals/communication". "Signals" transfer information (communication) and tie the various parts of existence together in coherent patterns. From the smallest known quantum phenomena up to complex structures like Gaia, a biological being or energy entities. Even non-matter/non-energy aspects of existence such as abstract systems have an inner structure of  "signals/information" keeping the parts in contact with each other (think f.ex. of any ideological system). I would like to use the word "structure" in the following, when I talk about patterns of signal-related parts of existence, be they material or abstract. (Please don't confuse this with the messy, hal-fbaked new-age clichée "holism". The word holism is so semantically misused as to be valueless).

One such special type of an abstract, information-gathering/processing structure is a belief-system. A belief-system is fundamentally made of two parts/parameters, though these are often intertwined: 1/ a basic set of assumptions, something we consider so selfevidently correct, that "it must be true". (Such assumptions are also sometimes called axioms.); 2/ method(s) for developing our basic assumptions to further conclusions, to gather more information and to process all this into "answers". In a universe, where everything is illusionary, ALL belief-systems will obviously be BELIEF-systems presenting us with uncertainties of the nature of reality. Hence the various philosophical attempts to find "basic" truths, we can rely on. Of course, this lack of absolute truth doesn't lead to the conclusion, that ALL information/processing structures (beliefsystems) are completely devoid of truth. Only that it's difficult to find absolute truths in them.

Illusion and Control

But let's for a moment look apart from the possibility, that the whole universe possibly could be illusionary, and look at the different ways belief-systems are constructed. They can range from the simplest faith-systems, where the only condition is, that you "believe" in something with no or little "proof" of its validity. "Proof" can usually be demonstrated by a series of control mechanisms such as experiments, logic, causality, pragmatism. Some religious organisations actually scorn at the thought of having such inbuild controls, though they are possible. Example: In some religious structures even "rapture" is frowned at, even if it could verify existence of, and contact with, the postulated "higher powers". The reason: Rapture could be an expression of infernal powers. Only the top of the clerical hierachy is authorised to make such contacts (this is usually for power/control). Some religious structures have lately, because of the competition from science, reluctantly started trying to "prove" their own version of a holy book, by using doomsday prophesies as a pragmatic proof of truth. Not always in a convincing way.

On the other hand, there exist belief-systems with a lot of control-steps. Science is an example of such, and its relative success comes from that. Unfortunately, its old conflict with religious organisations has historically given it some restrictive parameters, especially the request of emperic observation (i.e., excluding anything "paranormal"). This restriction means, that science can't have a dialogue with certain types of philosophy, religion and existentialism. In some cases this restriction even leads to science acting like a belief-system of the worst kind, by denying the existence of phenomena outside its self-chosen area of activity. Science in the most stupid way DEFINES away such phenomena, which it doesn't cope with: "We (science) don't have parameters for this, so it doesn't exist".

Fitting the Puzzle Together

Back to the main theme, the possibility of a completely illusionary universe. We have all these different beliefsystems, each with its good or bad parameters. Have can we find truth in that?

My answer is so simple, that I'm afraid, that a considerable part of readers will say: "But I knew THAT". We compare "the better" belief-systems to each other. "The better" belief-systems mean those systems with some control-mechanisms built in. Scientific systems it is possible to test pragmatically. We then take a look at the compatibility of as many different belief-systems as possible, preferably systems with different parameters. If we can see similarities, IN SPITE of different belief-system parameters, the closer an approximation to truth we have. Because our separate, "local" beliefsystem conclusions are based on sometimes very different approaches, our results will not come from the same processfailures.

I like to compare this process allegorically to laying a jigsaw puzzle. When you have the finished picture, you have truth. All the separate puzzle-pieces are the belief-systems you have to put together, so they FIT. If they don't fit completely, when violence is needed to press a couple of pieces together, it won't function. This is what happens, when people make crackpot theories. They take a little here, and a little there, twist and bend it a little and violá, you have something. Only it doesn't function.

So a last few remarks. All belief-systems tend to develop their own symbols for communication. Language, mathematical symbols, graphic symbols, etc. When you make a compatibility survey of your belief-systems, be sure to take a good look at their communication methods first. Remember the problems pointed out by Count Korzybski, when he created "general semantics".

And before you discard this whole idea on background of: "But you knew THAT", let me ask you a question. Have you ever APPLIED this theory to your life?

February 2008