CHAPTER THREE of the book 'BEYOND SCIENCE''

Go to Detailed Contents or return to Overview

UNDERSTANDING AND UNITY

The need for holistic understanding is emerging with increasing persistence in subject after subject as the process of globalization extends itself further and further and human relations extend across old divides. Growing recognition of the man !inds of planetar inter"dependence of environments# societies and nations has accentuated the need to assert the unit of man!ind and to develop understanding of a !ind which forwards this both in theor and practice. The chief motive and guiding principle of understanding and of meta"science is therefore to discover unit in diversit . The chief assumption alread stated here is that# just as the human being is essentiall the same the world over# so is the essentiall human facult of understanding universal. $s such it can be anal zed and explicated so as to improve the development of unif ing theories in philosoph # the sciences# the humanities and dail living. $ll intelligent people toda have some understanding of the need for the spirit of unit in human affairs. %t alone enables us to meet the great challenges raised b the first global culture in histor # such as the exhaustion and pollution of the natural environment and the unjust ine&ualities between peoples of different races# creeds and countries. To practice correctl in worldl matters# both 'theor ' and !nowing how to appl it are re&uired. %t is in &uestions of application that clashes arise between two fundamental approaches. The one starts from the worldl interests of the individual# be these economic# social or cultural interests. The other approach is supra"individual and regards all things in terms of the universal good' of what is true# necessar and best for man!ind and the entire world. (utting unit into practice involves the meeting of these two approaches.

Two )iewpoints* +ver &uestion# ever matter about which we wish to !now the truth# can thus be regarded from the individual viewpoint or the universal viewpoint. These alwa s mar! respectivel the base and the apex of a p ramid of intermediate viewpoints. These da s people are brought up and educated to regard most matters mainl from a relativel individual viewpoint. +ven when we are taught to identif with and protect the best interests of one part against another# be it our group# our societ # our nation# our culture... the appeal often relies most heavil on the individual concerned perceiving this as in his 'own' partisan interest. The perceived self"interest# even of a ver large grouping# is indeed not alwa s compatible with the universal good. ,uch a clash of apparent interests " the individual against the common good " almost alwa s lies somewhere at the root of human conflicts and also those between man and environment. $ll ta!en into account# however# the true# long"term interests of the individual cannot conflict with what is best for all. +xamples of policies said to be for the sa!e of 'unit ' but conflicting with the overall interest of humanit still abound toda . Trade protectionist policies as well as the lev of ver high interest rates cripple poor borrowing countries. -urther# their natural resources are over"exploited# more or less for the sa!e of the enormousl wasteful consumer industries of rich# hi"tech countries. Thus are the poor discriminated b the regional power blocs of rich countries with their mar!et"place mentalit . The unit called for b the big powers mostl stops short of those outside the 'club'. .et nothing but full inclusiveness can be the guiding light of true unit . /nit in Diversit * -ortunatel unification does not mean that ever one must believe the same or do the same or strive to loo! and be as li!e one another as possible. Diversit is unavoidable in human life# but this does not exclude the possibilit of unit of overall purpose. The results of loo!ing at things exclusivel # or even mainl # from the individual end of the spectrum is eventuall to invite disharmon and disunit . 0ost human problems remain

insoluble until the various contrar

views are brought together under the

universal standpoint so as to hammer out an overall solution. '1olistic' understanding arises when all partisan interests are viewed as parts of a whole. +ven an advanced scientific theor is virtuall no more than a mental construction !it with man intricate parts. %n lifting the hammer we understand much more than that we are !noc!ing in a nail# for we !now what it is all for. 2hen the school is built# we again see this as an integral part of a whole s stem of education. $ll understanding aims li!ewise at some such unit of purpose# which leads on toward attaining peace and unit of a more universal nature. 2hen considering how to understand or interpret an thing# principles serve to delineate the scope and nature of holistic and meta"scientific thought. The are intended as thought"regulative ideals# being based on the investigation of the essential nature and functioning of human understanding in the broadest sense# while also ta!ing account of specialised forms of thought such as scientific and s mbolic interpretative methods. The principles ma be used to further understanding in educational processes. The formalised principles are !ept to a necessar minimum of six here# necessaril being of a general# et precise# !ind rather than tr ing to give detailed rules of method. The overall principle of unit is the guiding principle of holistic understanding. 0oving towards the unitar whole b progressivel broadening self"consistent comprehension# human understanding aims to account for individual facts and relations that fall within its scope# eventuall to include all aspects of life. Diversit characterizes ever thing that ma!es up the natural world# not

excluding human beings or our societies. 1uman culture and civilization has alwa s aimed at finding a greater purpose in all this to fulfil it. 2ithout the millions of species of different organisms# plants and animals# the ecolog of nature becomes impoverished and can suffer serious brea!downs. 2ithout the man sorts of human activit # the ever"changing pattern of occupations# enterprises and pastimes# the present level of world development could not have

been achieved. The importance of diversit is seen in almost ever !ind of endeavour. Thus# variet is clearl 'the spice of life'. The fact of diversit can teach us is to perceive ever thing for what it is and to respect and enjo its uni&ueness. +ach moment in as unrepeatable historic event. +ach thought# word and deed has specific meaning and conse&uences in its specific context. +ach person is a special individual acting in a private drama. 3ife's richness comes from this profusion of nature and life and is experienced best through wonder and expanding one's vision all the time to include others and to appreciate their otherness for what it is# not li!ing them for what we want them to be. 2ithout this basic experience of diversit # one cannot see how the unit of all beings be realized.

/4%-.%4G (1%3O,O(1. The philosoph of unit deals primaril with all &uestions having to do with the s nthesis of ideas# theories# viewpoints# value"s stems. %t emphasizes s nthesis and unification as the !e to understanding rather than the opposite divisive and diversificator movement of thought# such as is represented primaril b the anal tical sciences. %t emphasises the one# but does not thereb neglect the other. .et it deals with anal tical thought# whatever the field of application# onl in so far as is necessar so as to articulate in various wa s what it regards as the primar and ultimate fact* /nit . This ma at first appear to some thin!ers to be a return to metaph sics# to the presentiments of speculative reason loosed from the bonds of the real world as is supposedl met onl in empirical realit . There is some truth in this# while the claim of unitar philosoph must be that it is a return to what has been lost# the bab that went out with the bathwater when modern anal tical thought threw out what it saw as empt and abstract imagining to its own chanted slogan# 5Down with metaph sics5. 4o simple terms can express this loss# it ta!es time to regenerate an understanding of the mentalit that is needed to overcome the too narrow

methodolog

attached to the prevailing dogmatic ph sical"ism and all the

foreshortened attitudes that this has generated. The roots of unitar philosoph necessaril go much deeper than the traditions of Continental +uropean or even Gree! philosoph . %t is from the +astern schools of thought# which ultimatel alwa s means )edic"influenced thought# that the grand conceptions of unit arose and had practical meaning in practiced codes of living and of understanding of the cosmos. +ven Gree! philosoph is# in the main# clearl philosoph a distorted reflection of the sublime and extensive in recent ears has it become possible of %ndian origin. Onl

through extensive new translations and the advice of brilliant current interpretators for 2esterners to gain sufficent insight into )edanta proper. The emphasis on some Gree! thin!ers whose naturalism and materialism eventuall led to modern science was made at great cost to unif ing philosophies. $part from the overall principle of unit # the principles here are derived in large part from insights developed in the theor objects 6'hermeneutics'7# partl of interpretation of meaningful through world philosophies in the broadest

sense# from ontolog to theor of science# from epistemolog to spiritual ethics. The are to be ta!en as guiding principles rather than as absolute rules of method or thought. The aim at increasing inclusivit of understanding# but the do not cover exhaustivel the entire field of human understanding# not least because this ma be said to include various forms of non"cognitive and supramental activit that are strictl be ond philosophical theor and belong more to the various realms of religious devotion# m stical identification and absorption be ond the subject"object relationship. $ certain emphasis has been given in their formulation to the correctives re&uired b the current dominant views in the philosoph of science. $s wor!ing rules# the principles can aid the structuring of research and of theoretical wor!. 8ecause of the multi"la ered and extensive nature of all that is to be organized b their aid# the principles are not made mutuall "exclusive 6in

an stricter logical sense7. Though expressed at a ver general level# the ma be supplemented and specified at an time in various directions b whatever sub"principles and explanations ma be needed for other or more particular applications# as the case re&uires.

T1+ (9%4C%(3+ O- /4%T. "Where there arise i!er"e#$es of !ie%&oi#t o# a#' s(b)e$t* their (#it' is to be so("ht i# a# (#i!ersa+ a# #o#,e-$+(si!e fra.e%ork esi"#e to .e iate &artia+ i#terests to those of the $o..o# "oo ". This principle expresses the aim of meta science as a form of overall holistic understanding in an subject' the integration of all facts and values relevant to the subject within one overall frame of reference. %ts principle combines the ideal of truth with that of moral goodness. The assumption that understanding aims at the good# and must aim at the good# is an assumption all good philosoph and science ought to ma!e. The alternative is either a theor against the good or one that believes it can remain neutral. To be entirel neutral in all respects# a theor can ma!e no assumptions or have an intentions as regards future action whatever. 8ut assumptions and intentions " with all their mainl implicit cultural and other leanings " are unavoidable in all human relations. The traditional dislocation of truth and good is thus rejected. -acts that are neither good nor bad in themselves are important as the basis of an truthful and good theor # whether in ps cholog or social theor # ecolog or medicine. These da s most people are brought up and educated to regard most matters mainl from a relativel individual viewpoint. +ven when we are taught to identif with and protect the best interests of one part against another# be it our group# our societ # our nation# our culture... the appeal often relies most heavil on the individual concerned perceiving this as in his 'own' partisan interest. The perceived self"interest# even of a ver large grouping# is indeed not alwa s

compatible with the universal good. ,uch a clash of apparent interests " the individual against the common good " almost alwa s lies somewhere at the root of human conflicts and also those between man and environment. $ll ta!en into account# however# the true# long"term interests of the individual cannot conflict with what is best for all. The relation between individual and common good is obviousl one of mutual influence. The dialectics of this need not occup us at present# enough to note that what an individual views as a good need not be in the common interest and vice"versa. .et an one who tries to understand an thing surel does so at least partl out of a desire for some supposed good# whether selfish# altruistic or a combination of both and not from a contrar or self"defeating motive. Consider# for example# all ps chological wor! and research of an sort. %t presumabl aims for the good of the individual# at least as far as this does not conflict clearl with the common good. $ll reasonable ps chologists would surel accept this# at least in theor : The same must appl in all branches of science. Though it is ver often arguable what the nature of such goods are# it can also sometimes be evident. $n ps cholog worth its salt has to recognise as fundamental the individual's reliance on societ for life# health# culture and so forth. 3i!ewise# the stud of societ has to recognise that societ depends entirel on individual efforts for all its achievements. -or these reasons# no individual can be understood without reference to the communit and with reference to the world of humanit in general. This insight is therefore embodied in the principle of unit above# where the primac of the common good over individual good is asserted 6which ordering becomes relevant to practice onl when there arises a conflict of the two or more values7. $t the same time as expressing a truth about the inherent nature and purpose of human understanding# this principle asserts the ideal towards which an persons' understanding strives* to account for all the various facts or values involved in an issue with theoretical or practical conse&uences in such a wa

that the fit together in the wa the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle ma!e up one whole picture. This ideal relies on the assumption or conviction that all things are ultimatel interrelated and that the interests of all individuals and groups complement one another at the highest level# which is what we recognise more and more toda as being the common 'unitar ' interest of humanit . 2here perceptions on some &uestion are at variance with each other# for example when there are opposing views on some moral issue# one strives to harmonise them. This ma mean appl ing to a wider frame of reference for the solution# or sometimes simpl the rejection of erroneous# insupportable views. Onl the universal# non"exclusive viewpoint enables us to find the mediating factors between a collision of views and interests. $n sort of conflict is soluble first 'in theor ' when the common !e is found* the appropriate moderating principle to the case. This in turn la s the ground for practical constructivit . This is in fact how we all would tr to thin! when tr ing to solve problems# b reaching as full an understanding as we can first# then appl ing it in practice. The primac of idea over action is seen# for example# in that no"one can act morall without some correct idea of value or in that dealing well with an complex social problem re&uires more than that 'fools rush in' and usuall re&uires fact"collecting# anal sis# debate evaluation before effective action can be ta!en. /nit of understanding implies the need for the universalit of !nowledge in science. The idea of universalit in the natural sciences was that the !nowledge the derived should be demonstrabl applicable at an place or time. %n the human sphere# however# this ideal has been either relaxed or ignored in man respects in most of the social and historical sciences. This is doubtless due on the one hand to the principal differences between nature and man# on the other to the facts of deep social and cultural differences that affect all aspects of human life at some level throughout the world. $n stud of the human conceived in respect of the existing spectrum of

!nowledge and ideas available in world culture will have a broader scope and greater general 6i.e. world"wide7 validit includes these considerations in its ver formulation. The principle of unit mediates understanding through finding the common ground in or behind two viewpoints. The two viewpoints ma lie an where along a continuum between the individual and the universal viewpoints on an issue. +ver &uestion# ever matter about which we wish to !now the truth# can be regarded from the individual viewpoint or the universal viewpoint. These alwa s mar! respectivel the base and the apex of a p ramid of intermediate viewpoints. 8etween the two extremes lie the viewpoints that are adopted b an amount of groups# institutions# schools of thought# traditions# national or world cultures etc. than research limited b and to scientific schools of national cultures and traditions. The principle of unit general 6non"specific7 level of

/4D+9,T$4D%4G# T1+ CO00O4 GOOD $4D )$3/+, %n &uestion where values are involved# the results of loo!ing at things exclusivel or even mainl from the individual end of the spectrum is views are brought together under the eventuall to invite disharmon and disunit . 0ost human problems remain insoluble until the various contrar universal standpoint so as to hammer out an overall solution. '1olistic' understanding arises when all partisan interests are viewed as parts of a greater whole# and that can be defined in terms of the 'common good'. %n this# the principle of unit combines the values of 'truth' and 'goodness'# in accord with our intellectual intuition that these are ultimatel inseparable. 2hat is meant# therefore# when the principle refers to 'an universal and non"exclusive framewor!' is that the overall viewpoint must appl to all and so ta!e account of all partisan interests and conflicting standpoints without excluding an # et while giving ultimate priorit to the aim and possible realisation of the common

or 'universal' good. The principle is a reminding guideline# calling for self" examination in the light of shared values. %t has through the ages repeatedl been objected that the idea of the 'common good' tells us nothing for it depends on how each individual interprets what is good# and this will be a subjective judgement conditioned b individual taste# interests# beliefs or politics etc. .et the ideal of the 'common good' itself implies something worth striving for. That it is meaningful is seen in the universal conviction that some circumstances are better for humanit and some are worse. Theories of egoism that would refute the universal good legitimise their particular t pe of conflicts of partisan 6selfish7 interests# whether at the individual or group level. $n theor of exclusivel materialistic egoism 6such as that of 1obbes or its elements as implied in extended Darwinism7 must be rejected at the outset as the negation of the 'multi"perspective' approach of holistic understanding. 9eference to the ideal of the common good# however general and non"specific this ideal is# ensures that a s stem of understanding ta!es explicit account of both facts and values. The &uestion of common good and how it is relevantl specified itself becomes part of the subject under investigation and a !e research goal for an sociall "meaningful ps cholog # sociolog or anthropolog . This would ensure that s stems of !nowledge are not claimed to be entirel 'value"free' and something that can therefore be pursued regardless of and in isolation from ethical concerns and priorities. Common good implies that a unif ing# universal idea of goodness is to be discovered among all the divergent cultures. This itself stimulates towards broadening understanding# enriching each perspective b the inclusion of man others# without losing sight of 'common denominator' values. /nderstanding grasps the unit in an series of inter"connected acts. $ll of purpose. 2e

understanding aims li!ewise at some such higher unit

understand each thing and action in terms of what it is all for. The nail and the

hammering are 'part of' the building process# itself a step on the wa to ma!ing a school. 2hen the school is built# we again see this as an integral part of a whole s stem of education 6which itself ma teach various ideas having to do with human unit 7. +ducation ma # for example# be seen as a good serving national unit # or also for world peace 6unit 7 or unit at et more universal levels. +ven the most advanced of scientific theories which aims at an unitar explanation of a whole realm of phenomena onl differs from other forms of understanding in the degree of abstraction and comprehensive complexit . The resultant understanding# if ade&uatel based and expressed includes human values in it own objectives# is self"reflective and criticall aware of them. %t is not an !ind of unlimited metaph sical speculation or rational idealism# divorced from realit and tied to fixed assumptions and methods. 4or are its objectives and norm"setting values one"sidedl determined b the past or an status &uo# either in societ or in established science. The chief repositor of holistic understanding is not in boo!s or other media but in the mind of each individual# where it is generated and regenerated through learning processes. This occurs through sound upbringing and education tempered b broad and positive life experience# illumined b concentrated reason# intuition and b constructive understanding in relating to others and the world we share in. 1olistic !nowledge is not accumulated in the s stematicall "anal zable manner or b the techni&ues used for most common !nowledge. %t rises from a gradual process of perceiving nexi of relationships# gaining insight into personal experience# trial ; error# testing in practice# the expansion of perspectives and intuitive grasp of the relevant whole. This widening overview and deepening insight graduall reorganises a person's relation to the world# eventuall bringing new unit to the widening perspective on diversit . Due to the scope of its perspective. such !nowledge is therefore 'higher' than discursive !nowledge of facts and theories. This fact also strongl accents the greater importance to

the human communit

of persons with mature holistic understanding than

technological innovations that would replace them and the greater overall securit their decisions would ensure than most !inds of specialist expertise operating on its own. -or the humanities# understanding must ta!e place within the perspective of our highest aspirations and deepest motivations. The sciences of man are still too undeveloped to reall ta!e such major considerations into account. ,o far to tr anal ze the human being or his wor!s with reference to an overall and explicit set of guiding values " let alone a macro theor on human unit and purpose " is wholl unmanageable and unrealistic. .et this does not invalidate it as a future possibilit . /ntil then science must and will concentrate on different parts of the human ma!e"up# or narrow bands of the social spectrum# regarding them empiricall and seperatel # but largel unrelated to an overall epistemological and practical goal for humanit . 2ithour a ver much more complete understanding of the human brain and mind# it is impossible to see the wa ahead to the universaliaation of intelligence# removal of ignorance and superstition.

/4D+9,T$4D%4G $4D -$%T1 (hilosophical theor of !nowledge cannot overloo! the role of faith in all !inds of understanding and !nowledge. -rom the start# science rested on faith when it assumed there to be an undiscovered order in nature# regularities or universal 'laws'. .et its method is s stematic doubt# until it reaches results what can no longer reasonabl be doubted. %nsofar as sciences hold an !ind of faith# it refers onl to the faith or confidence in the establishment of empirical results and experiments as having been underta!en and accuratel reported b the communit of scientists worldwide. This !ind of 'faith' can be tested against the documented results so it i ver far from being 'blind faith' or acceptance of assertions which cannot be proven or shown to be even li!el to hold true.

%t has been said that the lac! of doubts in a person is a pathological condition# as is that of the ps chopath who believes full whatever he wishes. There is much to be said for this view# for coc!"sureness usuall accompanies ignorance. On the other hand# mental illnesses also ver often accompan a severe lac! of faith in oneself and in the world... &uite apart from faith in an higher realit or creator. -aith of some !ind is a natural condition of the human being# a fact demonstrated in children and pointed out b philosophers such as 3oc!e and 1ume. 2hen disturbed radicall # the understanding also suffers because it has no option but to rel ver often on facts and testimon that are practicall be ond one's opportunit personall to test. Due to the inexhaustible variet of humanit # man t pes of experience and insight lie behind each personal world"view and ethos. -rom each our uni&ue social and historical starting point# toda 's globalization of societ tends to ma!e us develop towards a more universal vision in each our own wa . %t would therefore be impossible to state logicall in step"b "step fashion an single master method of understanding for ever one to follow. .et there surel are crucial differences in the progress of understanding " whatever its particular subject " depending upon the individual's degree of awareness of the process and which guiding principles one applies# if an . %t has been shown how crucial it is which assumptions one puts one's faith in# and this applies e&uall to all variants of religious belief. 9eligious faith is not necessaril dependent on an specific religious belief. 8elief in an church or traditional religious doctrine has come to have much to do with acceptance of various scripturall "reported historical events as facts. -aith in which texts or persons God ma have chosen to reveal the truth is necessaril blind faith# insupportable b an scientific research or independentl "confirmable empiric. 8ut faith does not necessaril re&uire belief in an form of God# but can instead be felt as purpose or meaning... a sense of something 'higher' which expresses itself through the greatest deeds of humanit .

The written or spo!en truths of the major religions have been passed on to us# often at several removes from the source. ,uccessive translations# loss and suppression of parts of the original and of the relevant historical facts often occurred even before the &uestion arose of how to interpret and appl crucial points that are unclear to us in our situation. 2hich tenets of a teaching# or which s stem of interpretation one believes in# can therefore var &uite independentl of what is here called 'faith'. -aith can also be invested in oneself and humanit as expressions of universal human &ualities and values# which also happen to form the basis of all genuine religious behavior. There are unfortunatel more than enough examples of beneficial religious or spiritual movements that have later become sects and even dangerous cults because of disagreement on points of belief. There is a pressing need to repair the ideological basis for conflicting beliefs as long as sectarian fanaticism and bitter conflicts still mas&uerade under the name of religion. $s an antidote to such dangerous convictions# critical doubt is praised in intellectual circles as the basis of a rational approach to life. 4ot least in the methods of science# which are more dependent on s stematic testing 6i.e. preliminar doubt7 than on a priori faith. (aradoxicall # in some periods# certain scientists ac&uired so much faith in science's presuppositions about the cosmos and the infallibilit of well" tested scientific theories as to have instituted it as a fairl un&uestionable belief" s stem on a line with religious faiths. +videntl # this amounted to a brea! with the scientific spirit. 1owever indisputable or thorough !nowledge of an matter an one has# it is in itself incapable of motivating an action whatever. To be moved enough to initiate an action or to find the will power 6and in the case of good or bad acts#7 re&uires some !ind of determination which would amount to faith in the achievabilit of the goal envisaged. %t ma be belief in the laws of nature# in another person# in societ or in divinit wor!ing though scripture or inner awareness etc. %ntuition# conviction and insight ma increase faith in diverse beliefs# but this has often amounted to illusions which are left b the wa side of

histor . 2here a person's understanding arises from life experience " even perhaps from the holisticall "oriented mind and ps che# and not merel some segment of one's experience and thought# it can be imprssive to those who do not have penetrating critical minds and a reserve of science"based !nowledge. 2hen we meet people who impress us as having the inner conviction of genuine !nowledge# the will almost necessaril not la claim to !nowing ever thing# nor will the den uncertaint about various matters of this world and whatever ma lie be ond it. 0etascientific studies obviousl rest on assumptions li!e all other forms of understanding. 2hile a critical approach is health # an open and !eenl investigative attitude is present. 2here traditional scientific s!epticism rules# doubt is no longer controlled methodicall but can ris! becoming an engrained attitude. This limits creativit and reduces willingness to reach for an thing much other than a ver cautious and hence gradual extension of creative hard for positive evidence to dispel research and theor . %t is also fruitful to engage in the s stematic doubting of doubts# which means loo!ing e&uall doubts< This 'double"doubting' should be a rule of all investigative methods# for it helps to bring into awareness otherwise unnoticed or improperl examined assumptions. The sciences have so far failed seriousl and consciousl to explore conceptions of human unit . 4either group unit nor social unit are much discussed or understood in an s stematic wa and even less is !nown to the ps chological sciences of the experience of unit and its importance to the growth of full developed personalit . 2here there are conflicts of ideas# policies and cultures# the aim must alwa s be to discover shared values# the underl ing agreement " the common interest " that unites. This re&uires the understanding of anti"values and research into their origins# causes and eventual removal through dialogue and reconciliation. 2ithout the guiding faith that we can generate increasing unit between human " and between human!ind and our total environment it is hard# or perhaps impossible# to see how unit of purpose in human societ can

be generated. The basic faith that lies behind the ideal of unit is that the existence of life and humanit has communalit . 1umanit toda is one species " meaning one single race of humanit " resulting from an evolutionar process which has brought about the species homo sapiens. The differences that have arisen are fundamentall due to genetic and environmental changes# the geographical distribution# economic and technical conditions# and the related historical and cultural of uni&ue tribes and civilizations were causes of disunit # expressed warfare# discrimination and much more. (rimitive attempts at understanding life and the world# the beliefs and rituals that arose in attempts to control the environment# grew into ver diverse and largel opposing faiths# each having their &uite different ultimate conse&uences for their adherents' lives. 1uman unit does not impl unit of faith or even the acceptance of an cosmic meaning or purpose implanted in humanit . %t would necessaril involve the acceptance of the ph sical sciences as the !nowledge which leads towards understanding of nature and human societies and cultures. 8r an $pple ard has criticized science for answering &uestions as if it were a religion promulgating the Truth. 1e held that those who hope to extend science towards development of a new spiritualit from within science should realize that 'a reason to live cannot be invented'. This is not a fact# and is observable so in countless lives of individuals. One does not need a reason to live# though man feel a need= evolution itself has ensured that life goes on as a result of the most basic survival instincts. 4o cosmic reason can be invented b man!ind# either# for then it would not be cosmic. %t would have to be discovered through science= which has not happened and most li!el never will. 1umanit cannot invent or simpl choose a faith without ris!ing most serious errors and their conse&uences. 1owever# to engender faith in wor!ing towards a world order in which the unit of purposes towards the overall peace and securit of humanit is hardl a misplaced or blind faith. One condition of its

realization is that it should result from a process of living and development of all forms of valid and peaceful understanding between peoples and their organized social s stems.

/4%)+9,$3%T. %4 /4D+9,T$4D%4G %t is highl unli!el that man people do not hold some beliefs that are not supported b !nown facts# or that will later prove untenable. %rrationalit is certainl ver widespread in human affairs and a scientific training is no safe inoculation against its man forms. One reason is that no !nowledge can be arrived at other than on the basis of assumptions. $ll pure theories# as in maths or logic# rel on axioms# which themselves usuall exhibit some inherent pre" judgements as to the nature of realit . ,uch axioms are stated as the basic principles of the theor # and are accepted as such# even if the are not entirel clear. 8ut non"axiomatic sciences# especiall the social sciences# are far more vulnerable to unnoticed assumptions# cultural or provincial prejudice and subliminal social norms. %t is essential# therefore# to be aware that understanding cannot be achieved without 'preconceptions'# as alread mentioned. ,ince the doctrine one holds at the outset will set its own limits on what can be achieved b it# one essential test of holistic understanding is the degree of universalit conceptions. The principle of unit indicates the overall test. ,ince universalit can mean various things in different contexts# some further &ualification of it is re&uired. /niversalit of understanding must be inclusive of all human beings# regardless of national or other origins# race# color# creed or class# without negative discriminator biases. $ meta scientific theor should ideall be universal enough in scope either to be compatible with# or otherwise to account reasonabl for# all viewpoints that have a relevant bearing on the subject. 2herever the outloo! of the researcher falls short of inclusiveness and universal of one's basic

values# blind spots and gre areas remain in understanding. The particular !ind of 'blind spots' obviousl depend upon the nature of the assumptions and fore" conceptions 6or 'pre"understanding'7# as has been exemplified in the foregoing discussion of scientific ph sical"ism. Different starting points will lead to different &uestions# different blind spots and unli!e degrees of overall consistenc . 8ecause a false assumption will influence the entire construction based on it# producing conclusions at odds with the facts or with one another and generall distorting the rationalit of the whole superstructure. %t is therefore essential that assumptions are examined in philosophical depth and b approach holistic scope# consistenc the widest possible cross"cultural and inter"disciplinar comparisons# if understanding is to and truth. The continued review of assumptions and critical reflection will doubtless alwa s be necessar . +xperience shows that most people can be seen simultaneousl to hold

standpoints that are inconsistent with one another from the viewpoint of standard logic. ,cholars are no exception# for example# some religious teachers believe both in pre"determination and free will and most scientists accept a principle of universal causation while still believing in chance or contingenc # such as some ph sicists who assert predictabilit along with indeterminac . ,uch contradictions have to be resolved if a paradigm is to be consistent. %ts degree of fruitfulness will depend on that of its self"consistenc consistenc plus its both with fact and with universal values. %ts self"consistenc

depends on language# so redefinition can be a wa to removed apparent 6verbal7 contradictions. 2hen major contradictions are the result of too narrow ideas or other misconceptions# the cannot be resolved within the paradigm. Often some basic assumptions are at the root of the problem# whether the are inherent or explicit. The must then be modified or replaced b and explanator others that allow power must be integration of all parts into the whole. Or else# such as in the case of scientific ph sicalism# the limits to its applicabilit explicitl stated and made widel !nown.

One ma well believe that there is unit in the essential nature or ultimate purpose of human!ind# et the cultures of the world still exhibit amazing diversit # not least on these &uestions. There is not onl a divergence between different world cultures' it increases in volume and &ualit # if not in essence# the more closel one examines doctrines and beliefs within an given culture. %n a science# different models of !nowledge are alwa s jostling and competing# though the fundamental method of science remains unchanged. %deological and religious doctrines " and partial scientific theories " once sent to oblivion sometimes suddenl re"emerge to challenge the conventional wisdom that replaced them. This is increasingl seen toda in all fields of thought. The clash of religions through globalized communication is causing man revisions of dogmatic theologies. Due to huge developments in both education# technolog and research# modifications are continuall ta!ing place in sub"theories in such sciences as ph sics# geo"histor # paleontolog # astronom # neurolog viewpoints and intellectuall and general medicine 6including its aw!ward 'problem"child' ps chiatr 7. Opposing inimical doctrines also still continuall divide ever philosoph # theolog and faith into schools# sects and both old and novel 'fundamentalism'. 1ow# amid all this in our newl "globalized but fragmented world culture# can one tal! seriousl about unit of understanding: $ncient religious scriptures# national wor!s of literature# scientific and philosophical treatises are often so different in conception and outwardl conflicting as to be impossible of direct comparison. .et mostl the same or similar essential values and insights ver often underlie and somehow come to expression in their man dissimilar forms. 8ut when a doctrine is made into an dogma# an exclusive and anti"universal scientific or religious teaching# a philosoph claiming the one and onl metaph sics# that is when the wider truth eludes our grasp. Those %ho tr' to e#for$e* b' %hate!er .ea#s* their be+iefs a# .etho s as the abso+(te tr(th are the rea+ e#e.ies of h(.a# (# ersta# i#"/ One does not onl have to be a religious bigot or a totalitarian censor to &ualif # for a number of 2estern intellectuals have alwa s been

inclined to ridicule and eliminate ideas foreign to the current world views that are predominant among them. 2here understanding lac!s# the thoughts# words and actions of the human being are in conflict. The conse&uences of this is disharmon and further conflict. $bove all# understanding naturall aims at comprehension# or drawing forth an underl ing unit in a diversit of things# see!ing to penetrate to the universal !ernel of truth in divergent cultures and their products and the common ground for reconciling conflicting values. There are obviousl man different possible starting points from which

understanding the nature of life# human existence and the cosmos is approached. 8 their nature# individuals have man uni&ue approaches towards the truth. The wa of truth is doubtless also paved with discarded certainties. 4onetheless# the more ideal approach ta!es its start from a viewpoint that happens to have the most universal and fruitful assumptions# the best methodolog and theories which have not been absolutized. This presentation of the nature and tas! of understanding is an attempt to outline as universal a method as possible. Therefore# in accordance with the view that no doctrine should be imposed as a dogma# % refrain here from stating an one or more specific teachings that % regard as optimal starting points for such an universal understanding as % have outlined. 0oreover# the more substantial principles of such a teaching and the answers to those &uestions which can be encompassed b an expressible understanding are so far reaching and have so man applications that even a reasonable demonstration of them is &uite impossible here# let alone within the covers of a general and preparator volume such as the present one.

Continue to Ch. >* Objective Observation ; ,elf 9eflection The above material is the cop right of 9obert (ridd # Oslo ?@@@. 9easonabl brief &uotations can be used without appl ing the the author.