NOR bullet points

Points are not elaborated in detail in this list; it merely highlights aspects distinguishing NOR from conventional thinking and objectivity.

  1. Non-Objective Reality is not presented as a system of ideas.   It is not a collection of arguments assembled in the traditional fashion of a theory, system, school of thought, intellectual discipline, doctrine or ideology.   However, NOR does present arguments regarding reasoned flaws in the objective view of reality.   The upshot of those flaws within human civilization is also examined.

  2. To any extent that NOR may nonetheless appear as a collection of ideas, it can be considered somewhat misunderstood – albeit predictably so.   Given the inherently conceptual nature of language and abstract thought, NOR, like anything else we think, speak or write about, looks like a fixed set of ideas.   But it is really just a set of ideas that negates our habitual faith in everyday ideas – if not all ideas.

  3. So what exactly is Non-Objective Reality?   NOR can be seen as a challenge to the rather blanket faith modern mankind places in the objective model of reality, and in the uniquely human aspects of abstract thought on which that model is based.   The aim is not to outright dismiss objectivity, but to illustrate objectivity’s flaws – as well as how those flaws are culturally exploited to compromise the minds of many.   The same flaws also lie behind our collectively irresponsible behavior towards the environment and one another.

  4. Asking about the exact nature of NOR proves awkward because NOR challenges the notion that reality could ever be fully understood by the divisive cognitive processes at the center of human abstract thought.   Specifically, NOR challenges an artifact those cognitive processes produce within the objective model: the notion that reality is best understood as a collection of basically discrete entities, plus whatever relationships the mind sees between those entities.

  5. Roughly speaking, NOR postulates a holistic aspect of reality not directly accessible to abstract thought, but encompassing and transcending our conscious ideas of reality.   Hence, given the challenge NOR represents, the idea of a full understanding of any supposed thing – including NOR itself – is problematic, as no things are considered to exist in wholly independent manners.   Any would-be full understanding of anything would need to be a full understanding of everything – which is obviously beyond us.

  6. Effectively, NOR can be envisaged as arguing that the whole can never be understood by any amount of knowledge regarding its supposed parts.   Those supposed parts are seen as nothing more than conceptualizations that allow abstract thought to proceed as an everyday aid to living.   But they are not authentic building bricks that constitute reality.

  7. NOR therefore sees normal human thinking as providing only the crudest representation of reality in a manner similar to the way cartoon drawings drop vast amounts of detail and exaggerate apparent discontinuities.   The resulting and excessively divisive simplification of reality is a fairly direct corollary of the deeply divided state of human civilization across the globe.   Without an awareness of this flaw in human thinking, the mind remains susceptible to forms of external exploitation that promote factional behavior – the well-known divide-and-conquer stratagem being the obvious example.

  8. NOR seeks a qualitative leap in human understanding, whereas the objective model of reality offers only quantitative advances.   Reasoned shortcomings are identified within abstract thought’s continual deconstruction and reconstruction processes.   However, in acknowledging the proven power of the objective view of reality, NOR does not present a direct challenge to the worldly usefulness of that view; instead, it circumscribes it in a manner that ends total dependence on it.

  9. NOR can therefore be seen as structured philosophical questioning regarding faith placed in the objective worldview.   But it also draws on growing environmental evidence that unbridled faith in such a worldview is tangibly detrimental to human survival.   Such evidence indicates a need for corrective actions as regards human cognitive functioning if the story of homo sapiens is not to be one of evolution gone wrong.

  10. Homo sapiens is seen as a peculiar species for having crossed some evolutionary threshold that provided not only a unique form of abstract thought, but all the linguistic and symbolic communication and recording processes that underpin our explosion of technology.   With that technological explosion having eventually created today’s rather precarious planetary state, it seems only logical to reason that our intelligence is not in fact as beneficial as we commonly imagine.   Nothing less than a rethink of cognition itself may be required to sort matters.  

  11. Hence, the incorporation of NOR into the individual’s view of reality is proposed as a true behavior-changing evolutionary development – albeit a mental form of change that conventional evolutionary thinking with its emphasis on material and genetic evolution has not spotted.

  12. NOR was birthed amidst an awareness that an exclusively biological understanding of evolution permits nothing that might help the planet’s most technologically empowered species avoid overshooting its optimal development.   It would seem we humans must round off our cognitive evolution to avoid being unwitting victims of our own success – or face the consequences of this universe’s apparent indifference as regards what survives and what becomes extinct.