Is Truth a democracy? Let’s explore …
First, to define our terms, at least in a general way:
Democracy is a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, oftentimes through elected representatives. The best candidate for a position is determined via a “majority rule.” In other words, whoever gets the most votes is considered the de jure (if not de facto) best – or we could say the “truest fit” for the job.
In western scientific and philosophical contexts, truth is in relation to ideas or beliefs about (gross or subtle) phenomena, and its designation depends heavily upon the tenets of valid cognition, i.e. on what counts as a logically valid source of knowledge.
In the context of Taoism and other nondual spiritual traditions, Truth (with a capital “T”) refers to a non-phenomenal “dimension” of experience, ontologically prior to the space-time expansion that allows for the appearance of phenomenal objects and events.
Verbal formulations or pointers toward such Truth fall into a category similar to that of scientific and philosophical truth.
In this essay, we’ll be considering both scientific truth and spiritual Truth in relation to the question: Is truth a democracy?
Truth & Justice
Now democratic forms (political and organizational) tend to appeal strongly to our sense of justice. It just seems right – i.e. in alignment with human dignity and respect — that everyone’s voice be given equal weight, in relation to decisions that are going to impact them more-or-less equally. This in spite of the fact that, within groups of people, opinions and beliefs tend to vary wildly in relation to the validity of their truth-claims.
In scientific and philosophical contexts, various theories (i.e. provisional beliefs/opinions) are not considered as being necessarily equal. Instead, the evidence in support of each theory is evaluated in relation to what counts as logically valid sources of knowledge. In light of such an evaluation, theories are weighted in terms of their likelihood of being true.
If my theory turns out to be less convincing — in relation to available empirical evidence and/or rational arguments — than is your theory, then my vote in relation to “how things work” is weighted less than your vote. What elects a theory are not individual human opinions/beliefs, but rather the “votes” of confirming evidence.
The Appeal To Popularity: Santa Claus, MacDonalds, Samsara
Central to the process of presenting logically valid evidence in support of a theory is avoiding logical fallacies, of which there are many. For our purposes here, one in particular bears mentioning: the fallacy of “appeal to popularity.” To succumb to this fallacy is to assume that a belief held with great conviction or longevity, or a belief that is held by a large number of people (even a majority), must necessarily be true. But this is not the case.
Consider, for instance, the belief in Santa Claus, held by a vast majority of five-year-olds. Or consider the popularity (with their “billions now served”) of MacDonald’s. Or consider the longevity and pervasiveness of samsara (dualistic suffering). Here are instances of longevity, strength of conviction, and numerical popularity that obviously do not imply the truth or virtue of the entity under consideration.
Does this put us in a position of having to choose between truth and justice? Or can the two peacefully coexist, each in its own realm of functioning?
Does this seem a hard pill to swallow, to acknowledge that scientific or philosophical truth (not to mention spiritual Truth) is not always, or even typically, arrived at via a democratic process?
Sticky Feet & Scientific Truth
If we could time-travel back, say, to the 6th century BCE, we’d find the majority of earth’s human inhabitants holding the belief that their planet was flat as a pancake, and that if you walked to its horizon you would almost certainly (despite the stickiness of the maple syrup on your feet) fall off into oblivion.
Some 2,000 years later, humans were mostly in agreement regarding the spherical shape of the earth. Yet until 1543, when Copernicus published his heliocentric model of the solar system, the majority of scientists as well as laymen still believed our spherical Earth to be the center not only of the solar system but of the entire universe.
And up until 1915, when Einstein published his theory of General Relativity, the majority of scientists and laymen alike believed space and time to be wholly independent entities – a belief which still holds today, among a vast majority of laymen, and probably also among most non-physicist scientists.
Democracy & Thinking Out Of The Box
So, once again, it would seem that scientific truth is not always nor even predominantly a democracy. The most revolutionary of scientific truths tend to be understood by only a few. More often than not, creative genius – scientific, philosophical, musical, artistic – is marked precisely by a capacity to think, see, imagine “out of the box,” i.e. in a decidedly non-democratic fashion. Down the road, a discovery may become generally acknowledged (in the manner of a popular vote) as being a “great” or “true” one – but the process by which it takes birth can hardly be considered democratic.
In scientific communities, the “peer review” mechanism determines — in something akin to a democratic fashion – which articles get published in the most prestigious journals. Nevertheless, the “majority rule” simply does not apply when it comes to general beliefs, among the larger congregation of laymen and lay-women, about “how the world works,” particularly in relation to very large (relativistic) or very small (quantum) scales.
Spiritual Truth & Subjective Inquiry
Is the deepest Truth of our being something that can be found out via a general election? In exploring questions such as — Who am I really? or What is the source of true and lasting happiness? – should everyone’s voice, everyone’s opinion, be given equal weight?
The direct experience of nondual Reality is entirely subjective, i.e. it’s available to me and me alone (even if this “me” is ultimately seen through as illusory, and/or radically re-cognized). The best that even a truly outstanding spiritual teacher can do is to point me in the right direction. Such teachers, in relation to the general population, are few and far between. And what makes them effective is their ability to see through deluded points of view, even (and especially) if such views are held by a majority of people.
The Inner Republic … & Well Beyond
In the first level of such a subjective inquiry, we become more acutely aware of the content of our mind, i.e. its various hopes, fears, opinions and beliefs. It’s quite likely, in fact, that we’ll discover within us an entire republic: a host of characters, each with his/her own beliefs and opinions, occasionally in concert, more often in conflict. And about the only thing this cast of internal characters is able to reach a consensus about, is that going beyond the terrain of mind is truly dangerous: if you step beyond its edges your demise will be as certain as stepping beyond the horizon of the flat earth.
In the deeper level of spiritual inquiry we do indeed step beyond (or, more precisely, realize our true location as already well beyond) the edges of mind, to discover — shockingly, wonderfully — that:
* This which perceives the mind (with its various contents, philosophical and scientific beliefs included) is not of the mind.
* This witness or Pure Awareness which is aware of the contents of mind does not share mind’s limitations.
Now, paradoxically, this transpersonal Pure Awareness that is tuned into – in a wholly subjective fashion, via spiritual inquiry — is the “same” for everyone. So in this sense it belongs “equally” to everyone. But the “place” within which this equality “exists” is non-phenomenal and transpersonal; and hence – unlike a political republic – is wholly devoid of (the appearance of) individually identifiable persons. So to call it “democratic” would be a stretch – since Pure Awareness is devoid not only of “persons” but also of any and all phenomenal attributes.
Beautiful Reflections
At best, then, democratic political systems are symbolic of the transpersonal freedom and nondual equality of Pure Awareness. The equality being symbolically acknowledged is an equality “in the eyes of God,” so to speak: an equality as Pure Awareness. To grant each (apparent) person an “equal voice” in the affairs of the state is a beautiful thing – even if the entire process is way downstream from the Pure Awareness that knows no separation of any sort, including between people.
Does this mean that, at the level of human bodyminds, each human being is equally capable of evaluating specific scientific or philosophical truth-claims? — Obviously not. Does this mean that the majority opinion should be trusted in relation to our spiritual inquiry? – Again, no. Does this mean that people are equally interested in or capable of the intuitive “seeing” required by nondual spiritual inquiry? An open question, I would say …
*
Leave a Reply