Experience and Reality
by Rebecca Bynum (June 2010)
Previously. I have argued that contrary to the assumption of most contemporary philosophers, it is entirely possible that mind exists as a reality in and of itself and this independent reality is perceived and utilized by the material brain as are other aspects of reality. And the current materialist vogue of dismissing the reality of the non-material amounts to an attack on the reality of mind. For example, in How the Mind Works, Steven Pinker condescendingly asks,
How does the spook interact with solid matter? How does an ethereal nothing respond to flashes, pokes and beeps and get arms and legs to move? Another problem is the overwhelming evidence that the mind is the activity of the brain. The supposedly immaterial soul, we now know, can be bisected with a knife, altered by chemicals.[1]
Therefore, each human being creates his own “mind bubble” of experience, and therefore psychology, not to mention morality, is reduced to a series of electro-chemical “flashes, pokes and beeps” in the individual brain and the mental process, that is to say our thoughts, may be controlled, and perhaps one day entirely controlled, by chemical means.
The modern scientific tendency to explain all experience in material terms has engendered a marked hostility toward any experience not so readily explainable, especially that of the value-realm, love, or even what one might term “religious experience.” Today, such life-changing occurrences are likely to be diagnosed as schizophrenic delusions and anti-psychotic medications quickly prescribed rather than to be taken seriously as actual, meaningful, personal experiences. As Thomas Scheff explains,[2] this labeling (diagnoses coupled with drug treatment) creates social isolation of the patient which reinforces his feelings of disconnectedness and confusion which may in turn prolong the mental crisis and even turn it into a chronic state of psychological dysfunction. When one considers that often these crises are the result of an initial spiritual experience (which can cause temporary disorientation) we begin to see a tendency to isolate and medicate those with the wrong ideas. Spiritual birth can sometimes be quite traumatic, but when it happens in a society that labels this kind of sudden awakening as mental illness, it can be devastating, even life-threatening to the individuals involved.
Scheff contends that recovery from psychosis is directly related to the patient maintaining a connection with at least one other person through a loving relationship – someone who sticks with him through thick and thin.
In the world-view of material determinism, there is no place for the concept of free will, and therefore not only is it entirely inadequate as a source of explanation for the human condition, materialism poses a real danger to personal autonomy and freedom. It is a reflection of the extreme arrogance of modern man that he would turn on that faith which sustained his ancestors for centuries and label religious individuals “crazy.” Psychologically speaking, there may always be an urge among the young to turn against the old order, the “father” of their existence. According to Sigmund Freud, the urge toward parricide runs through religion from its earliest inception,[4] and in a certain sense, this latest effort to destroy God is also a religious act, though unrecognized as such.
In essence, two different methods exist for seeking reality. One is entirely external (the realm of science, materialism) and the other, internal (the pursuit of values, or religion). And even though there is evidence philosophy is beginning to regain its former role of reconciling and balancing these two methods, the last century has been entirely dominated by the former. Just last month, Stephen T. Asma wrote in The Chronicle Review:
No self-respecting professor of philosophy wants to discuss the soul in class. It reeks of old-time theology, or, worse, New Age quantum treacle. The soul has been a dead end in philosophy ever since the positivists unmasked its empty referential center. Scientific philosophy has shown us that there’s no there there.
[5]
The Chronicle Review May 2, 2010 To comment on this essay, please click here. If you have enjoyed this article, and would like to read more by Rebecca Bynum, click
here.
Rebecca Bynum contributes regularly to The Iconoclast, our Community Blog. Click here to see all her contributions, on which comments are welcome.