…Continued from Part One Questioning human science.
The six higher faculties
Daily life is reliant on our ability to see, hear, smell, taste, and touch. These five senses interface our mental capabilities with the world around us. Beyond lie the six mental faculties we all possess: imagination, intuition, will, perception, memory, and reason. So we might ask exactly what these abilities interface. What relationship do they have to logic, reason and everyday thinking, and to our five senses? Part one of this post answered that question, namely a sequential conscious process given to the goal of life’s sustenance or growth.
That answer is not written elsewhere, insofar as I can find. Nothing in my search amongst the six higher faculties offered a clue. It is as though we have patted ourselves on the back for discovering these gifts from Creator, agreed their merits and shut down further investigation. Why? Aren’t these faculties something that human science should study in depth as a first priority?
Consider that if vision, hearing, smell, taste, and touch altogether represent our ability to perceive of material things, and perception is a higher faculty, then what roles do imagination, intuition, will, memory, and reason serve? What unites them? Do these abilities separately exist in a vacuum, or are they intimately related and interoperate in support of our life? Where does emotion fit in the bigger picture? Where is human science on these issues? Is there something we’ve missed in our study of Man, something that permits, even engenders the material world to interface with our spiritual nature; our living soul?
What does consciousness offer?
A google search of this topic also revealed some dissatisfaction amongst academia. It seems that ‘science of consciousness’ prefers to separate third-person data concerning behaviour and brain processes, from first-person data about subjective experience. It appears that behavioural and neurophysiological data are stock in trade for cognitive psychology and cognitive neuroscience.
The word ‘cognitive’ hints of progress as addressed at length in ‘Law from Within.’ It remains however that for science, ‘first-person’ data is concerned with the subjective experiences of consciousness. Subjectivity rules the day, seemingly, given ‘third person’ data concerns the behaviour and the brain processes. This train of thought is constructive because it includes perceptual discrimination, integration of information, automatic and voluntary actions, and reporting of internal states.
Progress at last
‘Law from Within’ deals with perception of data and data integration. It discusses automatic (subconscious) processing, and voluntary (free will) cognitive data handling, and shows their inseparable connections most importantly.
Inseparability of the cognitive mind from the subconscious mind is of crucial importance. It is the vital clue to understanding orderliness of the whole conscious/emotional process and its natural governing laws. Such wholesomeness and its congruent process should properly be the focus of human science.
It would seem at first that if conscious and subconscious mind processes affix to our six higher faculties, mental understanding becomes overly complicated. Surprise, surprise—it becomes more straightforward. Voluntary handing of information is our free choice, and this precedes the automated data handling of our subconscious mind. It is from this ordered sequence that the subject of ethical choice emerges, which of course should introduce moral behaviour.
What about Ethics?
The question of whether ethics may be considered a human science is hotly debated, with little resolution. Albert Einstein spoke of the moral foundations of science, but conversely that we cannot talk of a scientific basis for morality. Richard Feynman, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist, concurred with Einstein’s view by stating “ethical values lie outside the scientific realm.”
The debate among ethical theorists divides them into two camps; ‘continuity’ versus ‘discontinuity.’ The ‘continuity’ position argues that science and ethics share basic similarities, further that more points of congruity exist between the two camps than are popularly acknowledged. Not dissuaded, the ‘discontinuity’ camp maintains that ethics and science are fundamentally different kinds of activity, and no meeting can result. This position derives from Hume, who, in ‘A Treatise of Human Nature (1739-40),’ clearly stated that one cannot derive what ought to be (i.e. a moral answer) from what is (i.e. an empirical position).
Leaving ‘ethical based science’ aside, shouldn’t the human sciences focus not on political or public ethics, but personal or private ethics instead, that of our human nature respective of free choice? If our being is manifestly scientific in nature, including our mental processes, then ethics surely has a scientific foundation. In other words, shouldn’t the real ‘is’ of what we are, determine what we ‘ought’ to do, to live?
‘An educated person is a person who has so developed the faculties of their mind that they can acquire anything they want or its equivalent without violating the rights of others.’ ~ Napoleon Hill
In this event, and in vibrant contrast to Hume’s view, the ethical or moral position indeed does derive from ‘what is.’ Said differently, our nature as humans is directly related to ethics and morality, whence both have an objective basis in human science, fully independent from subjectivity.
A science of ethics – for human science?
‘Law from Within’ postures that a ‘science of ethics’ ought to be the foundation stone for studying humanities and other human sciences, for without this they lack a reference base and can offer little guidance. The above study makes plain that because we’ve not found the science of mental process, so we’ve not been able to formulate a science of ethics. Not only is there no ‘science of ethics’ today, likely there never will, so long as Hume’s conclusion that, ‘ought’ cannot derive from ‘is,’ remains as gospel truth. While nothing rattles the cage of any human science to open its eyes, a vast opportunity exists to invent any stop-gap ideology and assert its authenticity subjectively. (Today’s subject of ‘energetics’ springs to mind.) Accordingly, with no reality checkpoint, the humanities may well become more subjectively biased in their academic disciplines studying human culture.
This post, in two parts, has just brushed the surface of natural law encrypted within each of us. The reason we’ve never adopted the natural law in all history is that we’ve never discovered its source. We’ve not grasped the human science that underwrites our mental emotional and spiritual nature. We’ve written Man’s laws in place thereof, and are now finding how utterly inadequate, even harmful they are. Natural law discovery lies in the study of our nature as human beings, from a different human science perspective than ever we’ve used before. ‘Law from Within’ has sketched that outline. It is now up to professionals amongst all the human sciences to progress that work toward ensuring a golden future for humanity.
Back to Blog Index