The lack of credibility by scientistic esotericism

Anticipating the outrage and feelings of insult of some believers, let me foreclose (again) that I consider myself as a pragmatic relativist. My pondering in all kind of religions, philosophies and theories led me to the conclusion that simply nothing is true or false, right or wrong. There’s simply no (objective) reality out there to base any (universal) truth on. Thus, I’m no disciple of science, either. Heck, I consider science just as much of a belief than religions for example: It’s basic axioms in methods and theorems in theories are arbitrary presumptions – premises. However, this is where pragmatism comes in: Science has provided the most comprehensive and compelling concept for explaining this our world (in the West) so far, calmed down people’s worries and doubts and thus contributed the most to life’s highest values – may it be longevity, happiness or human progress (as I think is the basis for the prior).
I’m trying to understand every different concept for explaining the world. This attempt of course is limited and sometimes thwarted by my social imprint (which is of a Middle-European Protestant-Christian, rather Republican than liberal democratic kind). I see logical inconsistencies in the argumentation of people who on the one hand affirm the subjectivity of our consciousness and the important role of the human subconscious and on the other hand, claim to have got conscious of all their social imprints and to be able to transcend them. Such transcendence would not only require full objectivity but also full awareness of the subconscious. This is logically contradictory, I reckon. But again, such people may immunize their opinions by claiming that they have also transcended logic – which I must admit haven’t managed myself nor observed among great philosophers, animals or nature in general: Trial and error, learning by doing – life is doomed to be logic, it seems. Thus, such people rather appear like heretics in my eyes and out of different presumptions alone, must be excluded out of this discussion.
And nevertheless or just in fact, it’s such logical contradiction and the subsequent lack of credibility among certain alternative concepts of beliefs to science that I want to discuss at this point. Recently, a huge variety of rather new concepts of beliefs have come to my attention that try to merge spiritual ideas with scientific findings. The term “spiritual ideas” may not have explanatory sufficiency (as in the sense of mathematical sufficiency), but seems to hit the spot as the basic difference between such concepts of beliefs and science is that it assumes “non-materialistic”, thus spiritual factors in the universe that play a role in our life. Again, it’s important to notice that such beliefs do not assume that this might be materialistic aspects that just haven’t been discovered or proven by science, yet, but presume (and thus immunize the discussion) that this cannot be researched by scientific methods. “Only through your spirit you can explain consciousness”, I was told. Well, this reminded me of semantic linguistics where my friend told me that you cannot really explain scientifically the coordination between words and their empirical referents. Another common example is that there’s no way to explain with science why human beings have consciousness. On my behalf, however, this question is flawed because again, we analyze our consciousness from a subjective point, raise it over living being’s state of being and think that we’ve reached the peak of evolution. How the heck should we really know what we are, what we are thinking when our subconscious is so overwhelming? I rather favour the cyberpunkish conception that consciousness and identity is the result of an overflow of information that cannot be processed in time. In such a view, consciousness is not digital – existent or inexistent – but analog-dynamic: You can have more or less. On a sidenote, I don’t see any other motive in the general dichotomic conception of human beings on the one side and the rest of the nature of the other side than the “eternal” struggle of the human ego to be special. Dodge this!
So, we’re talking about concepts of beliefs that draw most of their ideas from spiritual and religious beliefs like Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism (Heck, most of those people don’t even know the source of both Buddhism and Hinduism!), Daoism, Shintoism, etc. General characteristics of these beliefs are that they exclude (monotheistic) deistic entities, stress on the human spirit and other polypolistic forces in nature. This renders the explanatory content rather flexible or differently put, ambiguous and vague.
I don’t see any logical inconsistency in those views. They’re perfectly fine in regard of their intrinsic premises, the argumentation and conclusions.
However, the bogus comes in when disciples (especially Western people) try to merge these ideas with science. By trying to fathom the limits of scientific explanatory power, in the present case, quantum physics, they try to build a bridge to spiritual concepts: Waves are no immaterial, thus spiritual. The logic is incredibly flawed. Why? Because science is built on materialistic premises! You cannot connect to line of argumentations that are built on different presumptions! Further, empiric science itself consciously excludes itself out of the whole wave and string theories because experiments have already proven that the very act of empirical analysis influences the object of investigation. (Personally, I also see that case in social sciences where descriptive and especially instrumental theories turn normative as their explanatory power influences the empirical referent more than the other way round. Jensen’s free cashflow theory might be a famous example. Personally, I’m studying on the case of corporate governance in Japan in general.) Thus, such disciples simply abuse the huge comprehensive and consistent body of findings, arguments and conclusions by science in order to prove their own ideas right – even though you cannot prove but only confirm or falsify theories of a humanistic approach!
But, why the heck would they want to merge those ideas with science anyway? There’s only one simple answer: They cannot belief them without having approved their own (socially imprinted) beliefs of Western science and norms! In other words, they’re still (unconsciously) trapped in their old beliefs – and haven’t even got aware of that! Thus, they do not only implicitly confirm their old Western beliefs but also betray their new-claimed spiritual ideas, deprive their credibility and create an illogical bastard of esotericism. That’s what esotericism is anyway.
Instead, those disciples should keep their hands of scientific findings and turning them into scientistic arguments, but instead should stick to their completely distinct premises. And if they want to proselytize – either because they need confirmation in their own beliefs by convincing others or because they want to make profit out of it – they shall argue the only valid way: with pragmatism. They shall foreclose – just as I did – that their ideas are also mere beliefs, not to be proven (scientifically), but to be believed, and argue that then– and only then – they would fulfill those aforementioned highest values even better than science does.

Why has Japan become a culture of materialism and ignorance?

Let me get straight to the point: Present-day Japan is promoting a lifestyle in materialistic ignorance. The question isn’t whether this is true – every initiate would agree anyway. It’s not a question about right or wrong, either, as there’s no “right” or even “optimal” way of lifestyle and it’s all about view, values and attitudes. There’s simply the question of why – why has Japan become like that?
To allays reservations about me forestalling the first two questions: First, of course, I’m talking about Japanese in general. And second, “materialistic ignorance” is not meant to be judgemental – at all. Both because of the bias of almost any present-day term as well as the high relevance of the topic, the second assertion may need some clarification: Ignorance shall not be confused with stupidity. Economists may think of “rational ignorance”, the state where it would be simply stupid to acquire more information since it wouldn’t pay off. And sociologists may think of the incredible judgemental embossement the “educated bourgeoisie” (in German: Bildungsbürgertum) has left on all these thoughts. You don’t need to watch modern movies like “Fight Club” to understand that “you need to loose everything before you can appreciate the least you gain”, but can start off right in the Bible where it’s written that “blessed are the poor in spirit because the heavens are theirs”. Having allaying this first concern about my own bias, I may introduce the two fundamental attitudes towards life that make rate “the Japanese way of life” completely different. The view and valuation of different kinds of needs and their satisfaction is crucial to the differences occurring.
On the one hand, there’s a simplistic, fundamental attitude towards life. This attitude stresses out basic needs and their satisfaction: Why caring about science and arts if you gain the best feelings from good food, deep sleep and well, intensive sex. Educated people in particular may agree that thinking rather leads to more worries than intellectual satisfaction: Either because you get more questions than answers or need to start to worry about losing your answers again. Critics may call this lifestyle hedonistic, supporters have already called it pragmatic. Anyway, the prioritization of basic needs also implies – and hopefully, will be consciously grasped as – a rather existentialistic, self-determined, maybe egocentric world view.
On the other hand, there’s an attitude towards life that combines utilitarian principles with the higher appreciation of more “sophisticated”, “distinguished” needs: Just according to Maslow’s pyramid, satisfaction in intellectual studies and self-fulfillment are considered as well as felt as more intensive – probably also in the awareness that they contribute to human development and therefore the chance of satisfying even more “sophisticated” needs. Please consider that I’m talking about development and not improvement as the first doesn’t need to make us any happier.
Having said that, let me also disclose that personally, I’m trying to commit myself rather to the second attitude towards life – not out of conviction but a sense of duty: Probably, I wouldn’t have been put in this privileged position both to take the time as well as the system-critical capabilities to asses these two views if my parents and ancestors wouldn’t have worked their asses off for me. Thus, if I want to grant the same insight to future generations, I may do best not to make them read this essay but to make them experience themselves – and this can only be ensured with enough resources gained now. Thus, both for human development as well as the opportunity to make the very conclusions here, I consider it as much more sustainable to choose the second way – and history seems to prove me right, too.
See? Going straight to the point has made me to go into details of details. However, in the end, you may see that the conclusions of this whole essay lie much closer to the universal attitudes explained above than you might have though. Also keep in mind my important distinction between reading and learning on the one hand and experiencing and understanding on the other.
Well then, the question is at hand: How come that the Japanese society has brought up such a short-sighted, ignorant materialistic lifestyle?
This certainly hasn’t always been like that! Just looking back before the two World Wars reveals a Japanese society craving for knowledge, leading discussions through all social strata and resulting in upheavals and movements that threatened the very locus of power. Think of the Meiji reformists and their principles or think of Buddhism. We need to consider that all these events and ideas may not be representative for the whole people of Japan, though. There’s the valid claim that Japan simply never showed such a lifestyle because most people couldn’t afford it! It’s only been in the last few decades that most Japanese have acquired enough wealth that they – or rather their children – could live out their real attitude towards life to the full extent.
However, instead of insinuating hedonism as a cultural basis, I rather would like to introduce another hypothesis: The economic development in the last fifty years hasn’t allowed such a lifestyle, but caused it in the first place! The economic success of Japan has cauterized Japanese culture. When Japan entered the period of high growth, every Japanese was able to get a job – however, despite the high and fast growth of the economy, Japanese people have never acquired the same living standard like in Europe for example: They normally spend 12 hours a day at work, get home exhausted, just to do the same thing the next day again. The economic success hasn’t freed them from their poverty and lack of need satisfaction but just locked them up in a new cage. Japanese employees don’t have spare time or power to care about politics, they don’t have spare time and power to think or do arts. All what it’s left for is some mindless shopping. Think it this way!
At some certain point, this development had become a self-enhancing process, of course. You may want to call it a vicious circle. A culture of political culture ceased, topics like philosophy and arts lost attention and this again had an impact on the socialization of upcoming generations which were born into a system of labour and some spare time for shopping. You can’t learn about political discourse in school. You need to try it out yourself. But are you supposed to do that if there’s cram school to be attended late night? The Japanese have started to run faster and faster in their hamster wheel and all their amenities were expelled until there was only the cold-iron wheel bars left they were clinging to. Japanese materialism isn’t an expression of hedonism, but a desperate escape from an underprivileged life.
Now, if this hypothesis should hold true, how are we supposed to solve things? There’s no use to call Japanese to come to their senses when there’s nothing but work that awaits them. You need to break the system itself, see and try whether a life less under the economic imperative holds more amenities. However, kept in fear of loss by the mass media, having never seen how things are different and still work in other countries, they lack the experience to compare. As extensive and effective the Japanese education system may be, it’s diametrically opposed to the concept of true understanding and insight.
As I mentioned in the introduction already, this conclusion is based on a rather strict conviction about learning and understanding: I’m a fierce opponent of monologue argumentation and explanation. In other words, I don’t think that anyone can gain more understanding (however, certainly more knowledge – but what the fuck is that supposed to be good for if you don’t really understand, grasp the problem and idea behind?) that lies beyond the personal, subjective view. That means that you cannot lead a political discussion representing both sides, that you cannot improve your argument by not receiving any input from someone else, someone else who’s thinking differently than you. You cannot fool your immanent you hiding behind every idea and argument of your own. It’s only in a true discourse with someone else where your thought, your opinion, your idea and your understanding can be enriched. And well, the truer and more direct this discourse is, the more effective! You cannot argue with a book and therefore, reading a book is the least insightful way of learning! How do you want to study, not to mention to understand a foreign country if you haven’t been there? The information is just too complex to be stored up on some pages – just like this essay by the way.
Just think of Japanese in holidays! They don’t try to live in the foreign country, try to get in contact with its people – no, they stick together in a group, follow their tour-guide and rape pictures from one sight after another. Captured, it’s in the box, ours now. This short moment saved for the rest of the life. There’s quite some despair shining through that materialism, isn’t there?
No, the best way to make Japanese aware of their situation is to actually make them see the world!