Language Patterns and Cognitive-Sentient Reality: Certainty/Uncertainty in Cognitive-Sentient Exploration of Reality

Introduction

The issue of human reason vs. universal mind is longstanding, yet unresolved. From time immemorial, philosophers have sought answers to questions about the nature and extent of human-interaction with its sentient environment and with the influence on his environment on the human condition. In Greece, philosophers like Socrates held that, “The soul, endowed with all knowledge, existed before the body”. His disciple, Plato—inspired by Pythagoras and by the Egyptian hermetic philosophy—is known for his Theory of Forms in which “forms” are ideas. Ontologically, the Theory of Forms is, perhaps the most relevant to the modern reality of information and communication technologies (ICTs). Plato’s non-physical forms/ideas represent the most authentic reality, and ideas have the structure of “sacred geometry” which plays a primordial role in creating and affecting matter.

Anaxagoras (adept of the atomistic structure of matter) advanced the concepts of Democritus, but believed that a “creative divine mind”—organized and ordered matter—constitutes a thinking mind. Like Plato, Pythagoras believed that mathematics is the most sacred and exact of all the sciences, and demanded that all who came to him for study be familiar with arithmetic, music, astronomy, and geometry. He combined ancient principles of sentience in new ways to impose order on the universe’s chaos through the patterns of mathematics and music (Hall, 2001).

In China, the 500s BC saw Lao Tzu and Confucius (initiating and developing the Taoist Yin/Yang philosophy), about the same time withBuddha (initiating the reincarnation and “channel-wheels” (chakras) philosophy) in India and a little before Socrates in Greece. Further west in Babylon, the Jewish prophets Ezra and Nehemiah were writing the Bible, and Zoroastrianism was having enormous influence. (Smith, 1958; Hall, 2001).

Scholars are familiar with the ontological postulates of cultures past including Egypt, Greece, and Mesopotamia, but the ontologies of these cultures are often obscured by lack of modern understanding. The ancients did not dissociate subjective and objective reality. Rather, they sought to discover their relationships. When ignorance of ancient language-symbolism—such as cuneiform and the hieroglyphics of the Incas, Aztecs, and Mayans—is added to modern misunderstanding, the result is chaotic. Misinterpretation of ancient ontology has led to the conclusion that ancient civilizations were scientifically primitive—a conclusion based on a false premise. Generally, ancient cultures had psychological subjective ontologies; i.e. they perceived reality as cognitive-sentient. Accordingly, ancient ontology is drastically different than modern ontology that has been based on material objectivity. However, the modern scientific ontology is changing rapidly due to a paradigm shift in scientific principles inaugurated with the advent of a quantum-based media reality.

Ironically, ancient ontology may prove to be more accurate than its modern offspring. The reason for this is that ancient worldviews were based on a combination of reason and introspection—the frontier between certainty and uncertainty--that may have been more accurate than modern dependence on technology, statistics, and a basically materialistic scientific method. In other words, during the so-called age of reason, modern scientists have abjured their most exquisite instrument for reasoning—their own multi-scalar sentience.

The greatest error that modern scientists make is their refusal to recognize how superhuman sentience influences human thought that constitutes the dynamic for evolution. As Norse mythology puts it, evolution happens “at the edges of extremes”. As Carl Jung puts it (Jung, 1933; Schafer, 2016) the cognitive conscious/unconscious is engaged in a perpetual conversation, and that conversation is the frontier of evolution. In other words, the “value intensity” of the energetic interaction results in evolutionary ideas. If both sides of this cognitive conversation are not appreciated, no human progress can be expected. Generally-speaking, the ancients were less susceptible to scientific hubris than modern scientists who have long ignored what they consider “mystical” and, therefore, unscientific indicators of reality. If “introspection” is mystical and irrelevant, science becomes a façade (Schafer, 2016).