Life from the meta-perspective

It’s time that we had a reasonable discussion about the way we perceive information, about our reality perspective. There are a lot of people, myself included, that are missing the forest for the trees.

I don’t claim to be an academic and I admit I’m not current with regard to new trends in philosophy, sociology, or psychology. Hence, my apologies to the intellectual community should I be saying something that is patently obvious and known.

I believe that each individual human being has a personal perspective of reality, due to a unique sequence of life happenings that occur within three dimensions and time. I also believe that many of our common experiences lead to a shared perspective based on location, culture, community, and social groupings. What I don’t think that many people realize is that these viewpoints require immersion in a medium, that in order to have feelings, ideas, opinions and other manifestations of perspective one must be surrounded by the society in which one exists. The thoughts that we have are based on the programming we have received, which is dependant on our society, the personal experiences of the people that had a hand in raising us, the occurrences within our community, and so on.

What happens when you remove yourself from that immersion? What happens when you make the conscious attempt to observe the world from a less individual viewpoint by shutting down personal biases, tendencies, desires, relationships, and other factors that define your subjective reality in order to reach as objective a vantage point as humanly possible? What happens when you try to go beyond considerations of meaning or personal appeal in order to observe societal functioning as a natural event or a basic scientific process, like weather or gravity?

I think it is impossible for the human mind to be totally devoid of personal perspective, the “me” is always the starting point for observation, but if that mind can function for a limited time outside its own bubble of reality in order to perceive things from a more universal perspective, a sort of meta-perspective can be achieved, in which all considerations of meaning and personal or communal benefit are eliminated in order to be replaced by an interpretation of data that is as close to reasonably objective as possible.

The self IS a perspective. If we remove language, emotion, and reason from the individual, we are left with only a viewpoint. We are part of the universe looking at the universe from inside the universe.

Relativism, nihilism, values

From the meta-perspective, values become meaningless. All the ideas and ideologies that we cling to and generally take for granted become completely devoid of parameters, forcing us into a downward spiral of absolutes that all wind up in the same thought vacuum. Take, for example, a simple value proposition that most social humans share, like “killing people is wrong”.

If we begin to analyse that simple statement and seek to define its scope with regard to its value within a personal or social framework, it remains valid. Our experiences have shown us that our empathy makes it problematic for us to take life from our peers. We are willing to sacrifice our personal benefits from the act, should there be any, in order to participate in the social framework that maintains the act itself is incorrect according to our individual or shared value systems. Yet, all these rationales exist within a certain parameter structure, they all depend on our participation in a shared experience as the act itself requires at least two individual entities to be on common ground within reality and with shared values.

The meta-perspective forces us to re-evaluate our predefined notions by subjecting simple statements to further scrutiny. Are there any times murder is right? If not, why? What do concepts like “right” and “wrong” actually mean and where do they come from? Are they universal concepts like magnetism that exist within a physical framework or are they solely human constructs? Should we choose to ignore our own personal biases and programming in order to commit acts that are generally unpopular for personal benefit? If others do and we do not, are we limiting ourselves needlessly from achieving our personal goals according to social mores? Why is that necessary? What are the possible results within our social framework? Is there any universal meaning attached to our actions when elevated to a general cosmic scale, assuming there is no higher power or authority than our social structure? So on and so forth.

The universal vacuum

When we remove a universal authority from the equation, assailing any notion we have of reality eventually evolves into a total lack of meaning, ethical cohesion, or sense because all of these ideas are human constructs that have absolutely nothing to do with the mineral and chemical silence that seems to pervade the cosmos. Life creates an island of meaning. It creates a multitude of perspectives all jockeying for dominance, sometimes using force, sometimes guile. It creates relationships, a whole miasma of desire, importance, meaning, and vantage.

The level of commitment to the shared social illusion is, therefore, the yardstick of an individual’s willingness to satisfy his/her personal needs. Some of us cling more strongly to our rules to the benefit of ourselves and our peers while others are less constrained and tend to satisfy personal needs more than work toward a common goal. When viewed from the meta-perspective, both are reasonable and comprehensible, they are simply life path choices devoid of any sort of value judgement attached to them. Hence, the hard-working individual that pays taxes, crosses the street when the light is green, and keeps the stereo volume down so as not to disturb neighbours creates a life path that is as valid as one selected by the more egocentric individual that commits tax fraud, jaywalks, or plays loud music into the wee hours. Both are born, live life experiences that prepare them and program them for adulthood, then live until they die. From the meta-perspective, neither is right or wrong because the definitions required to pass a value judgement simply don’t exist as foundations for discussion.

Humans seem reticent to accept this simple fact, however. Even those that champion such “empty universe” concepts like atheism or nihilism seem to rein in the logical progression of thought prior to creating a perspective completely devoid of considerations of right and wrong. Concepts like neo-humanism are the result, where we’re expected to accept that even though there is no ultimate celestial authority, we must still confine ourselves to act within ethical parameters even though it is clear that those guidelines have no basis in reality. This is the wishy-washy, Orwellian doublethink that seems to infect the rhetoric of most of those that espouse a non-authoritative universe. All hierarchies and assumptions about reality are to be questioned except for that sacred, last bastion of humanity. We must be allowed to eliminate gods from our lives, but we must still cling to that last tenuous thread that connects us to our ancestors, because in so doing we elevate ourselves to a place where we can still be “good” people. As horrifying as it may sound, I would like to see the result of a genuine atheist cutting that final umbilical, acting with abandon, no longer subscribing to programmed value propositions.

Innocence and curiosity

That individual becomes like a child responding to each unsatisfactory answer provided with “Why?” and finding out that the in the end, the value proposition exerted by the parent takes priority through logical force. Let’s go back to the example from before and subject it to that sort of treatment.

“Killing people is wrong.”
“Why?”
“The act deprives another individual from being able to enjoy his/her own existence.”
“So? I don’t care about that person, only me.”
“That’s very selfish, you need to get along with people. Live and let live.”
“Why?”
“If you don’t, it will be very difficult to live in a society.”
“Why?”
“People will want to protect their own interests and will act against you.”
“I don’t care, I can look after my own interests and make them do as I say.”
“That’s very difficult.”
“Why?”
“You can’t do everything by yourself, you would need people to act in concert with you.”
“Then I’ll either convince them or force them to follow my wishes.”
“That is wrong.”
“Why?”

The argument then continues, with one individual questioning every statement and assumption made by the other until the one that made the base assumption impinges the liberty of the questioner by adopting an authoritative position (“because I said so”), the two agree to disagree (“let’s do something else apart from argue”), or the questioner seemingly agrees with the one who posits the statement in order to avoid further conflict (“whatever you say”).

There can be no satisfaction of the posited statement because from the meta-perspective, the statement has no defence when taken outside customary parameters. A simple statement like “killing people is wrong” is shown for what it is, a guideline for human individuals to get along within a societal structure that has no inherent meaning or use outside of those specific parameters, and is in fact challenged constantly by individuals that engage in the practice with little or no consequence, like soldiers or violent criminals.

Heroes and villains, a matter of perspective

It is apparent that the two aforementioned human groups are, ethically speaking and from the meta-perspective, exactly the same, with the former enjoying the benediction of social authorities and the latter operating outside the scope of established norms. The actions, social conditioning, and thought processes are similar. A private in the army and a thug working for an organized crime boss both follow the same basic line of work and justify crossing standard societal boundaries by following orders without question. In both cases, economic, territorial, and security interests trump society’s regard for human life, which is actually quite far down on the list in terms of things held to be inviolate. There are myriad “except when” examples. It is wrong to invade another foreign power’s established borders “except when” the economic interests of the invading power are clearly in jeopardy. It is wrong to cast a family into the street to die “except when” disputes of personal property and economic compensation are in play. It is wrong to benefit from falsehood and fraud “except when” the individual perpetrating the acts can pay steep fines in order to skirt other forms of punishment. It’s amazing how many of our supposed ethical structures fall by the wayside when confronted by our need to adhere to another invented structure, namely the market system.

I pass no judgement on any of our human conceits, from the meta-perspective they simply exist, with no inherent positive or negative value to them. My goal is to point them and discard the falsehoods surrounding their use. There are too many concepts that, when viewed from the meta-perspective, create a sense of lacking, where many of the ideas we have always accepted without question become nonsensical, like “deserve” or “wrong” or “success” or “value” or “proper” or any of the hundred other abstracts that have no measurable correspondence in reality. We all cling to certain illusions to ensure we can enjoy at least some part of the society that fosters us, and it’s surprising how completely opposite ends of the spectrum can use inverse arguments in order to satisfy their own needs. A poor person may justify a lack of social success with such arguments as “but I’m a good person” or “I focus on what’s really important” while a rich person may justify a lack of scruples with “I can have anything I want” or “I focus on what’s really important”. Or neither clings to anything and simply exists, without justification or emotional bartering, from the meta-perspective, they are all valid, as validity is a conceit.

As I mentioned, being able to see things from the meta-perspective is, for the individual created by society, a blessing and a curse. Being able to see the complete lack of absolute value or importance in things leads to a number of states, none of which are conducive to living within a social framework. Consumerism and the purchase of goods for personal comfort or status become unsatisfying. Ambition and the quest to establish dominance become empty pursuits. The drives to engage in ethical or moral improvement ring hollow. The good are seen to be deluded, the bad are egocentric and go unpunished, and the ugly, outside of evincing a characteristic which is to one side of the median of aesthetic norms, have no inherent value one way or the other.

On the bright side, it’s lovely to be able to look at absolutely everything and laugh.

2 Replies to “Life from the meta-perspective”

  1. Hi Frank,

    So interesting you brought up this topic.

    My daughter was asking me today why government and society turn a blind eye to social and environmental responsibility? Why do we continue to pillage the earth with total disregard for the future of the earth and humanity? Why do people put themselves first and not work towards a common societal good? Why?

    Some of this line of questioning follows your comments and some is another topic altogether. Like yourself I’ve wondered about how the world could be perceived from a perspective devoid of culture and bias. The only perspective that I could think of that would come close would be a perspective from that of raw nature itself.

    Nature exists in a state of dynamic chaos. However, within that chaos, there is a drive towards a balance, This balance is not static, but also changes with time. The direction of the weight of the balance determines the outcome. This outcome could determine such things as the survival of a species, its extinction, or the development of a new one.

    Within our species the majority follow cultural, or learned norms, in addition to preprogrammed instinctual behaviours that keep us within the bell curve which, for the most part, allows our species to survive. There are outliers, criminals, murderers, inventors, novel philosophers, scientists, etc. that can pull the bell curve of culture one way or another. This is a result of the innate chaos of nature. In the end, it is the movement of this species bell curve that determines whether or not we adapt quick enough, or stabilize when necessary, to survive as a species.

    So, going back to the question you asked, is killing people wrong? From nature’s perspective, if it leads to demise of the species through societal breakdown, probably not. So we don’t accept killing people as an everyday casual practice. If the issue is over population and the species’ survival depends on reducing numbers, then probably yes. An example is war, whether between countries or crime gangs, it is waged over territory and resources. Over population increases societal stresses which also manifests as murder and other crimes, and suicide.

    Although an oversimplification of a huge discussion, and not as elaoborate as the thoughts you have eloquently shared, it is a nutshell of my ‘meta-perspective’ of the world around us. This perspective is admittedly biased by our limited knowledge of what nature’s rawest form actually is. Nonetheless, I throw it out there as a thought.

    Cheers,

    Rocco

    1. Rocco, I’s so sorry it took this long to get to your response. Truth to tell I didn’t realize you had posted it until I logged in to the site today to make a small tweak to a page.

      Your own meta-perspective jibes well with the issues I’m raising and as you say, is another discussion entirely. It raises the question of the “natural” versus the “unnatural”. From the meta-perspective, both concepts to a degree become meaningless, as they are only useful when related to the parameters of a natural system. The meanings of the words are also muddled by their use within other systems (ethical, religious, social) where they are more synonymous with “normal” and “abnormal” as defined by the rules of the system in which they are being used. Being gay, for example, may be totally unnatural in a religious idiom whereas in the natural world there are myriad examples demonstrating it is a fairly normal thing. Likewise, the idea of infanticide is something that both of us would clearly consider abhorrent whereas in nature, especially among felines, it’s a fairly standard practice.

      You’re right, I can see how many of the pressures exerted by natural forces are heaped upon our species but they often do not jibe with our own universal view, or are directly used by many to justify actions according to their particular whims. Hence what you mention you discuss with your own child, how some can pillage as much as possible with no regard for our future as a species or the common good. I think that from the meta-perspective, they’re simply working outside the bounds of systems that have anything to do with our own. They do not operate within an ethical framework or within legal parameters. They do work within a social structure, but that structure itself has no inherent right or wrong actions. I blame this on the worship of capital and how our species has become almost exclusively embroiled in a race for symbolic tokens. It’s a compulsion loop, and it’s hard to escape it because there are really few places left where you can go to get away from it. And to get to them requires capital. So, in the end, we must participate. Those of us that adhere to a set of ethical standards are clearly at a disadvantage. I’m not even going to get into the “why” of the whole thing, which is a very long discussion indeed. I think our race has been engaged in it, off and on, for about 20,000 years or so. 😉

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *