Intellectual Honesty

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

- Upton Sinclair

The idea of intellectual honesty follows only from a healthy skepticism. Once attached to an idea, whether actively conscious of the matter or under undue subliminal influence, that individual is precluded from entertaining any notions that might endanger the overarching paradigm. Even though the latter is more forgivable than the former, both are choices made by the individual. We all do this every day. We have to. Take, for example, the words sunrise and sunset. Now, I'm not the first to note this linguistic inconsistency, but under auspice of our current cosmological understanding, it is the earth's rotation, in orbit of the sun, that occasions the parabolic movement of our solar body across the sky. The sun neither rises or sets. Alas, dear reader! There is hope yet in intellectual honesty.

I recall a story of how during industrial revolution England, there was a discussion among those cosmologically inclined intellectual types that postulated the various amounts of coal that probably made up the sun so that it could be hot enough to energize the solar system as it so obviously does. We look down on such primitive thinking because our science is so much better, of course; yet I inquire further. Why is it that their best scientists were any worse than ours? They applied the best models at hand and were generally satisfied with the results. After the planet witnessed the tremendous voracity of nuclear technology, the sun became a nuclear phenomenon to those generally satisfied with the models at hand. Sound familiar?

But what if I were to tell about a paradigm that explained the sun a bit better? Ever heard of the electric universe, or maybe the holographic universe? They are different perspectives that have many overlapping ideas, and to my mind, better explanatory power for certain phenomena that lie beyond current 'scientific' thinking. We can detach ourselves from the ideas in our minds, and see them from the bigger picture. As noted earlier, we have to attach ourselves to particular ideas to use in specific operations, but once removed from the required perspective, what sense is there in perpetuating it? Holding on to outdated perspectives is to be a believer. To push the envelope of new ideas is to be an innovator, a creator.

So, maybe and electro-holographic paradigm is not the be all end all of universal cosmology, but that's not the question at hand. As far as Mr. Upton Sinclair so succinctly describes in the short prologue to this post, some people might prefer to keep their jobs in lieu of the potential consequences.

Common skepticism dictates that all ideas must adhere to rigid parameters to merit consideration, which is a valuable contribution in and of itself, but also the limit of it's worth. The limitations inherent in theories ought not be given precedence to direct experience of events that supersede explanation, even by the full utilization of the best explanatory models at hand. At the best, any model that seeks to fully explain anything needs to leave out other things that don't jive with it, and necessarily, leave out all the rest of the mystery of the universe. Models are good, don't get me wrong. All I'm saying is that any and every human model ever will be faced with anomalies eventually. There's just too much to be known for us to know it all.

Intellectual honesty leaves room for the universe to do its own thing, even though it would be doing that regardless. Unfortunately, the hardest part of healthy skepticism is to use the same language used by common skepticism in different ways that will communicate beyond what can be contained in the language itself. Authentic communication necessarily requires the interchanging of people's feelings in order to be recognized as such. Emotionally committed, not blinded, individuals are able to relate to each other better. Plain and simple. Displaced apathetic language and mind-control usurpation of instinctual responses have no worth in the dialogue of dignified human conversation. Argumentative polemics asserting their domination would have no chance for survival in a free and open society.

People emotionally committed to the pursuit of truth will do their work. They'll back up their work with palatable results available for all to behold, to the best of their ability, in spite being excommunicated from ordinary culture and vilified by common skepticism. The results they reach might be confusing to the novice in esoteric thinking, but upon significant investigation and research any individual can expand the scope of their perspectives by just giving in to the mystery of it all for a while and wandering around with open eyes and ears, ready to imbibe the elixirs that life has to offer.

It all comes down to persuasion (to be elaborated further) amongst members of a community (to be elaborated much further) of individuals with common interests (to be elaborated much farther further). When I identify with my peers as a unification of sub-totalities we are able to progress the cause. If the cause be truth we will invariably disagree yet have common terms.