Gratis verzending vanaf €35,-
Unieke producten
Milieuvriendelijk, hoogste kwaliteit
Professioneel advies: 085 - 743 03 12

Finding new paths

Reading | Philosophy

Fred Matser | 2023-10-22

Forest,Trail,In,Deep,Woodland,With,Sunlight,Shadow

Our founder and chairman invites us to look at the world from new perspectives, under new angles, so to see through the artificial constraints imposed by culture and habit, and devise functional paths forward. This essay is part of the book Beyond Us.

It has become trite to say that ordinary human life has changed much since the time of our prehistoric ancestors. Nonetheless, I feel that most people today don’t actually realize the sheer extent and repercussions of these changes, which have crept into our lives over the centuries. Back in our prehistory, our ancestors’ inner lives were directly integrated with their outer, natural environment. There were no roads, sidewalks, street signs, or even demarcated trails, let alone GPS navigation. Every morning, as our ancestors awoke to go about their activities, a new adventure, a new exploration—quite literally—would begin through uncharted territory. They would have to sense and find their ways in their environment in a manner that has become unimaginable today.

Our ancestors had freedom in a sense lost to us. Now we follow roads, obey street signs and traffic rules, type in addresses in our phones. Every step we take, or kilometer we drive, is one already taken or driven countless other times by countless other humans. To say that we constrain ourselves to beaten paths doesn’t begin to capture the restrictiveness of our situation, or its claustrophobic ethos. Our ways have become fully standardized, as opposed to spontaneous; driven by security and convenience, as opposed to curiosity and wonderment. Life has turned into a business, instead of an adventurous exploration.

Through the course of human history, going about the world has acquired a totally new meaning: now it has nothing anymore to do with interacting—in the true sense of the word—with our natural environment; we hardly sense it, negotiate with it, learn from it, or abide by it. We hardly even notice it. Going about the world today is merely a means to an end: it’s about the destination, not the journey. If we could just teleport from one place to the other, so much the better. But since teleporters are still just science fiction, we’ve done the next best ‘civilized’ thing: we insulate ourselves from our natural environment. We use highways and roofed cars, as opposed to putting our feet on the ground, in the dirt or water, feeling the wind and the warmth of the sun on our skin, smelling the scent of wet earth after the rain.

Our early ancestors, unguided by streets or addresses, had to sense their way through virgin terrain, often never stepped on by another human. The world lay before them as countless possible paths, countless possible interactions, countless ways of seeing and being in the world. To know where they were and where to go next, our early ancestors looked at the position of the sun and other stars, sensed the direction of the wind, became acquainted with natural landmarks and vegetation, observed the behavior of other animals. They were attuned to their environment through senses that have become atrophied in us, for sheer lack of use. For them, it wasn’t all about the destination; it was about a relationship with the world where they were born, and which sustained their lives. Journeys for them were—instinctively—about new discoveries, new ways to relate, new experiences.

But now we no longer experience the richness of our ancestors’ relationship with the world. In the name of safety, efficiency and convenience, we built—and continue to build—cages around ourselves; not only in the form of cars, houses and clothes, but also in the form of those ubiquitous standardized paths. Moreover—and perhaps most critically—this self-imposed confinement is both literal and figurative.

Indeed, as we physically confine ourselves to streets, highways and marked trails, we also mentally and emotionally confine ourselves to standardized ways of thinking and feeling. Human society offers us—in the form of culture—a menu of possibilities: liberalism, conservatism, materialism, spiritualism, communism, socialism, libertarianism and many other ‘isms.’ Each option entails a recipe—endorsed by the authority of labels and groups—for how to think and feel ‘properly.’ These are mental roads, so to speak, defined by words and to which we adhere as carefully as we adhere to the boundaries of a highway. They are tried, tested and therefore vouchsafed. God forbid we deviate from these standardized ways, for then we could lose the protection—and acceptance—of the group.

Without the reassurance we get from the echo chamber of group thinking, we might even question the validity of our own spontaneous feelings and intuitions. So we willingly forfeit our individuality—the unique and original way we have to spontaneously relate to the world, created by nature through billions of years of effort—for the sake of belonging, comfort and safety. As a result, the human adventure becomes more and more impoverished. Its bright original colors turn into bland pastels and, eventually, a mere greyscale. In some places and historical junctures, they have even turned into black and white. This is the tragedy of our situation.

Sometimes we can intuit the original richness and spaciousness of our ancestors’ relationship with the world: have you ever noticed that, while hiking in nature, if you return from the hike along the same trail you used on the way over, you experience the trail in a completely different way? It’s as though it were a different path. And this happens simply because you turned around to look back, instead of forward. Imagine in how many different ways we could experience a little piece of nature if we left the trail altogether, to explore it along different angles? Imagine in how many different ways we could experience life if we departed from the ‘isms’ altogether, and looked upon life according to our own spontaneous, idiosyncratic vantage points? Alas, these days it is hardly possible to be ‘off road’ at whatever level or manner.

This is not to say that all paths are enriching. There are functional and dysfunctional paths, both literally and figuratively. Just as some trails lead us to the edge of an abyss, some ways of thinking are detrimental to life and world alike. But the point is that we lost our freedom to explore, to make uncontrolled choices. We’ve experienced some of this freedom when we were children. And largely thanks to the richness of that relatively unconstrained interaction with the world, which fed our souls in ways we cannot verbalize, our consciousness developed. But as adults, the opportunities for further development of consciousness become restricted by physical and mental roads and maps. We are not expected to find and experience original ways to think, feel and live. Instead, we are expected to conform to the standards available, including the reigning value-system of our culture.

By conforming we doubtlessly increase our safety and comfort. But we also become numb to our outer and inner natures and their unfathomable degrees of freedom. Instead of exploring the world we were born into, our lives turn into repetitive routines and formulas that fail to enrich us. Again and again we go around the same circle, to the point we become only half alive. We do live longer, but a kind of life more akin to surviving than thriving. Senses we originally had as children—a kind of subliminal intuition on the border of perception—become atrophied. And without these senses, our ability to notice and pursue original, functional paths in life becomes diminished. We then find ourselves in a vicious cycle: by constraining ourselves to the standard paths, we lose the very intuitive senses that would allow us to pursue other, original, spontaneous paths. This, regrettably, is the reality we find ourselves in today.

So what can we do? How can we change? Simple things, surprisingly enough, may make all the difference. For instance, a simple daily meditation can help slow our minds, so we are present to the possibilities of the moment in our natural, peaceful state of being. Doing this daily can help wean us off our overwhelming addiction to the businesses and transactions of the anthropocentric world. Moreover, spending more time in nature contributes to wellness and wholeness as well. It re-grounds us in the matrix of our ancestral being, helping us recover lost perspectives.

Subhash MIND BEFORE MATTER scaled

Essentia Foundation communicates, in an accessible but rigorous manner, the latest results in science and philosophy that point to the mental nature of reality. We are committed to strict, academic-level curation of the material we publish.

Recently published

|

The end of physics as we know it?

Prof. Dr. Caslav Brukner, Prof. Dr. Renato Renner and Dr. Eric Cavalcanti just won the Paul Ehrenfest Best Paper Award for Quantum Foundations. Their different no-go theorems make us reconsider the fundamental nature of reality. Bell’s theorem in quantum mechanics already confronted us with the fact that locality and ‘physical realism,’ in the sense that particles have predetermined physical properties prior to measurement, cannot both be true. But in certain variations of the Wigner’s Friend thought experiment an additional metaphysical assumption is now also put in question: the absoluteness of facts. In different words: can we safely assume that a measurement outcome for one observer is a measurement for all observers?

|

The perils of smuggling metaphysics into science

The acquiescence of physicalism within the broader cultural milieu allows for the smuggling of assumptions into scientific inquiry, which are then, in a circular manner, considered to be validated by science itself. This disastrous interplay perpetuates a continued myopia in distinguishing between the ontological claims of physicalism and the assumptions of scientific inquiry, argues Adebambo Adedire.

From the archives

|

Why did Nietzsche break with Schopenhauer’s Idealism?

Once an enthusiastic Idealist in the tradition of Arthur Schopenhauer, the later Friedrich Nietzsche broke from Schopenhauer’s philosophy with a vengeance. Adebambo Adedire argues that this shift had more to do with Nietzsche’s later rejection of the metaphysical project itself, than with the particulars of Schopenhauer’s Idealism. For Nietzsche was to eventually consider the goal of understanding the nature of reality both impossible and inherently demeaning to the human condition. Yet, we ask, can a thinking human being ever stop wondering about what reality, and the self within it, ultimately are? Even if we, as primates, cannot arrive at the ultimate metaphysical answers, aren’t we correct in aspiring to overcome our own metaphysical mistakes and delusions?

|

Can we know the future? The science of precognition

Mainstream science still tends to dismiss extrasensory phenomena (ESP). However, these so-called ‘anomalous phenomena’ are key to understanding the nature of reality, claims Dr. Julia Mossbridge: “We are beginning to change the way we think as science enters the ‘maybe we got it all wrong’ phase.” In this interview, Natalia Vorontsova talks to Julia about her research in fields ranging from neuroscience and psychology to physiology and physics, tackling questions of free will, the nature of time, the mind-body problem, and key metaphysical implications.

|

Can there be a scientific form of spirituality?

Jonathan Dinsmore proposes applying the same cautious inferential reasoning used in the scientific method to developing metaphysical beliefs based on first-person experience. This may open the door to a form of spirituality that, although still grounded in personal insight and, therefore, not objective in a strict scientific sense, is nonetheless based on the form of disciplined thinking that has made science so successful.

Reading

Essays

|

Intelligence witnessed the Big Bang

Could it be a coincidence that two founding fathers of modern day computing, independently from each other, are both coming with theories of consciousness that are idealist in nature? Or does a deep understanding of what computation is—and what it is not—inevitably lead away from physicalist ideas on consciousness?

|

Enter Experimental Metaphysics

Essentia Foundation’s Hans Busstra visited Vienna to attend a conference on the foundations of quantum mechanics, and interview physicists on the metaphysical implications of quantum mechanics. In this essay, he argues that what is called ‘experimental metaphysics’ might be at the heart of future progress in physics, and that philosophy and physics are moving closer together.

|

Why did Nietzsche break with Schopenhauer’s Idealism?

Once an enthusiastic Idealist in the tradition of Arthur Schopenhauer, the later Friedrich Nietzsche broke from Schopenhauer’s philosophy with a vengeance. Adebambo Adedire argues that this shift had more to do with Nietzsche’s later rejection of the metaphysical project itself, than with the particulars of Schopenhauer’s Idealism. For Nietzsche was to eventually consider the goal of understanding the nature of reality both impossible and inherently demeaning to the human condition. Yet, we ask, can a thinking human being ever stop wondering about what reality, and the self within it, ultimately are? Even if we, as primates, cannot arrive at the ultimate metaphysical answers, aren’t we correct in aspiring to overcome our own metaphysical mistakes and delusions?

|

Can we know the future? The science of precognition

Mainstream science still tends to dismiss extrasensory phenomena (ESP). However, these so-called ‘anomalous phenomena’ are key to understanding the nature of reality, claims Dr. Julia Mossbridge: “We are beginning to change the way we think as science enters the ‘maybe we got it all wrong’ phase.” In this interview, Natalia Vorontsova talks to Julia about her research in fields ranging from neuroscience and psychology to physiology and physics, tackling questions of free will, the nature of time, the mind-body problem, and key metaphysical implications.

|

Can there be a scientific form of spirituality?

Jonathan Dinsmore proposes applying the same cautious inferential reasoning used in the scientific method to developing metaphysical beliefs based on first-person experience. This may open the door to a form of spirituality that, although still grounded in personal insight and, therefore, not objective in a strict scientific sense, is nonetheless based on the form of disciplined thinking that has made science so successful.

Seeing

Videos

|

Can we be both rational and spiritual? Prof. John Vervaeke on solutions to the meaning crisis

Hans Busstra sat down with John Vervaeke to discuss the meaning crisis, the Zombie myth we’re in, and how it all relates to what Vervaeke calls “rabbit hole metaphysics”: the conspiratorial, outlandish and often absurd ideas people start believing in, in search of meaning. A characteristic of rabbit hole types of metaphysics is that they have a ‘thick’ description of reality: a constellation of ungrounded assumptions build up to a ‘once you get this, there’s no way back’ narrative, which repeats itself in online echo-chambers.

|

Is reality made of language? The amazing connection between linguistic and physical structures

The structures of our language, which function as directly accessible carriers of meaning, reveal remarkable parallels to physical systems—particularly quantum systems—which can therefore be regarded as carriers of meaning as well. This profound interconnectedness of language, thought and reality challenge our conventional understanding of what is going on, argues Dr. Sachs. His insightful observations reveal surprising ways to make sense of the paradoxes of quantum mechanics along linguistic—and therefore thought-like—lines. Though involved, we highly recommend that you give this essay a careful read, as it is surely worth the effort.

|

Discussing quantum consciousness with world’s greatest minds: Penrose vs Faggin vs Kastrup

Two giants of science and technology—Nobel Laureate in physics, Sir Roger Penrose, and inventor of the microprocessor, Federico Faggin—meet to discuss their ideas on the relationship between Quantum Physics and consciousness, with the special participation of our own Bernardo Kastrup. While always respectful and congenial, the participants don’t shy away from disagreements. Their starting difference regards Quantum Theory itself: while Federico Faggin and Bernardo Kastrup allow its implications to inform their views, Sir Roger Penrose believes the theory itself to be at least incomplete and require further development. The discussion helps pin down and make explicit the fine points of the three gentlemen’s respective ideas regarding consciousness.

Let us build the future of our culture together

Essentia Foundation is a registered non-profit committed to making its content as accessible as possible and without advertisements. Therefore, we depend on contributions from people like you to continue to do our work. There are many ways to contribute.

Essentia Contribute scaled