I.HISTORI BACKGROUND OF THE MODERN ERA

In the context of a discussion on a knowledge of the past, it is important to note the specific historical-philosophical climate of Europe during the 16th-17th centuries, within which the Scientific Revolution took place. It is also worth while to recall some basic presuppositions, essentially Western, which dominate our times, summarised as follows:

a. The Universe

1. A mechanical machine, with no intention or purpose; not an organism having consciousness. In being so, it is indifferent to man – hence it needs to be conquered.

2. It is real to the extent it can be externalised, quantified, measured in terms of mass, dimensions of size, colour, taste, etc., characteristics that are ultimately not real.

3. The internal nature of man is subjective and different to the external which alone can be objective and true.

4. Matter precedes intelligence; the latter must be explained in terms of the former which may be dead though subject to purposeless forces.

5. Time is linear, sequential; and space essentially uniform. Energy is basically the same, not gross or subtle – though it may be more or less in quantity. Time, space and energy are only externally real, and are independent at the level of perceiving consciousness.

6. Importance is given to the causal notion, in terms of the evolution of complexity and intelligence.

b. Man

1. Man is essentially a rational cognizer, a body with a mind localised in it or an "engine with a will" (Descartes and Behaviourism); he is an atomic being, an individual without any transpersonal spirit.

2. There is no essential hierarchy of being or consciousness among men or within men; even if so, it is irrelevant to knowledge and the organisation of society, governments etc.

3. Man as he is, is an imperfect being, yet the measure of all things.

c. Knowledge-Truth

1. Knowledge is an end in itself, except for the betterment of the estate of man.

2. There is one truth, if it was Christianity once, it is Science now.

3. Subject and Object can be completely separated, i.e., without a need for earlier studying oneself.

4. Reason is the only faculty by which knowledge may be obtained, even experiments are extensions of this faculty. But sensations and feelings are not true perceptions.

5. True knowledge is obtained by proceeding from the parts to the whole.

6. The importance of detaching oneself from the subject of study, rather than by participation and experiencing the object.

7. Reality is a mental construct; knowledge is abstract and general, not a vision or experience of particulars.

8. True knowledge is quantitative, not qualitative – what can be quantified is independent of place and function.

9. True knowledge leads to predictions of what is known, since it is based on external, repeatable perceptions; only that which is externalised is available to true knowledge.

10. The truth and falsity of propositions is self-evident, irrespective of the person who says it.

11. As knowledge has nothing to do with being-ness or consciousness, it is not esoteric, i.e., it requires no moral preparation to be discovered or to be understood.

12. In principle, in the making of actual observations (not in the interpretation of data), the observer can always be replaced by scientific instruments.

13. The dichotomy of faith-knowledge, is perhaps more a consequence of the Scientific Revolution rather than a presupposition that truth and knowledge reside in dimensions different from those in which religious considerations about God, etc. reside. 

Thus, modern science and technology – Scientific Revolution – took place within a specific historical – philosophical climate of Western Europe during the 16th-17th centuries. These notions continue to dominate contemporary times in general. For example, the old idea of classical science continues, e.g., that of separateness: observer from the observed, man from nature, mind from matter, science from religion, etc. In short, it leads to the specialisation of different scientific disciplines that leads to competition among scientists. It was thought that the study of evolution of man, his history and archaeology, could be pursued objectively as if contemporary man was outside this picture. These reductionist explanations continue to be followed in many disciplines.

In short, the emphasis is on the localization of causes, since the sole epistemological assumption is one of empirical evidence, i.e. data arising from our physical senses. By the middle of this century these two metaphysical assumptions, of separateness and empiricism, became intrinsic to science. It is against this background that the tremendous developments, and disasters, of the 20th century need to be seen. It was sometime after World War II, that there was a great deal of assurance of humankind for the practical dimensions of the notion of ‘progress’ on a global scale, equated with high technology.

This notion of linear growth is directly related to the way one views knowledge and continues to study it, inevitably to support unexamined world views. To reterate, the study of Art whether of the past or that of "tribal" cultures, has been placed lower in the evolutionary ladder. And this is what has had a direct impact on contemporary situations. Without going into details, it is clear that Western thought has consistently modeled those worldviews which have generated ontological gaps that runs across the whole domain of experience. For example, human and other organisms, in spite of the fact that they share the same cosmic niche, are considered to be literally worlds apart.

This dualism is one of the fundamental, often tacit tenets of Western metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. Dualist conceptions of human beings themselves are rooted in this deep-seated anthropocentrism (Malik: 1968, 1969, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1989a, b; 1992, 1993a,b: 1995). Archaeological and culture-historical studies continue to function within this outdated paradigm, it must be stressed. This dominant worldview has even assimilated evolutionary theory, by historicising the ontological gap. All-religious or secular-teleological perspectives construe the variety of life forms as the result of a process leading to the advent of humankind.

Thus, Homo sapiens is not seen as a stage in an indefinite flux of change, but as an end, the glorious result of a history of trial and error. Is there any difference between this view and that of creationism? The dichotomy between human and nonhumans was frequently extended to other races, often treated as slaves and even women were not exactly placed in the same category as evolved humans – this was especially the case with many 19th century Darwinians. Social differences within Europe itself were classified in this line of thought, the techno-economic models supported by archaeological knowledge which we continue to take for granted (Bouissac: 1991). Again, what is considered universal today usually implies a dominant Western world view – whatever way one may define it – and all other categories have to be subsumed within it in the name of universalism. In this one may include the idea of linear time, progress towards a certain state. But this makes these approaches less flexible, as against those cultures which see evolutionary developments in terms of cyclical time wherein catastrophes are part of nature and reality and, further, are encompassed within a larger context.

 

[ Newsletter | List of Newsletter ]