Now that social hierarchy has gone, and insignificant people are made Lords and Ladies, are we not all regarded as equal social units, regardless of creed or ethnic background? Have not most businesses gone mad with “growth” featuring in every company’s Annual Report, not for a purpose but as an end in itself? A child could see that “growth” cannot continue for ever, but must come to an end sometime. Having disposed of any reverence for God and the fear of life after death, have we not reduced the value of everything until money is made the measure of all things? And “growth” worshipped?
Yet there is nothing to prevent us pulling ourselves together. There is much in modern life that is wholly admirable. For example the best in modern advocacy paints a picture with the facts, in such a way that when people hear the advocate’s description they say to themselves, “Why did I not see the events in that way before?” In other words, once seen in that particular way, it is so obviously a true picture that it is impossible to see the facts in any other way, [unless a better advocate paints a better picture]. You do not argue that your picture is right; it is obviously right. You argue about what the proper conclusions are to draw from the picture you have painted. The truth of your picture is self-evident, once you have painted it. In the same way, it is self-evident that the scientific way of looking at the universe is true, once you have seen things that way. Not the whole truth, but true so far as it goes. It is a waste of time saying it is wrong; if you say that, the proper conclusion is that YOU are wrong. Science has not only filled our world with gadgets, it has changed the way we think, probably for the better. The only sensible comment to make is that it is not the complete picture. Science is no longer the prerogative of the West, but it was undoubtedly the creation of the West. So why should not the West be the first to see clearly its true impact on religion?
Similarly with my Theory of Consciousness; once properly understood, I hope it is only in the light of its understanding that it is possible to form a credible picture of truth and appearance; that is until a better theory of consciousness comes along. After all, once a theory of consciousness has been created, it means that it is possible to create one, however many errors there may be in mine. So there is no going back to the time before a theory of consciousness existed; just as no physics experiment was much regarded in the Cavendish, unless you calculated the likely degree of error, so now any rigorous argument must take account of the likelihood of error in it basic assumptions. If I am right that any mental picture whatever, which you actually think about, must be created in an attitude of mind, then this attitude of mind must rest on certain unspoken assumptions, just as science rests on its basic assumptions and mathematics rests on its axioms. There is no difference.