RELATEDNESS AND RELATIVITY

Relatedness: It is easy to understand that the idea of relatedess underlies all relativity theory. The way in which anything appears to you - that is, what you perceive to be so - always depends upon your relation to it - on when and where you are relatively situated - and thus one may say, who you are (your background, culture, character and nature etc.) To those differently situated it will appear differently. Nevertheless, the idea that there is no absolute point of reference - no single equation, axiom of anything like it - from which to determine the truth of anything, is held to be fundamental to all observations that can ever by made by anyone. Relativity theory gave impetus to the common saying that "everything is relative".

This slogan does capture one central insight behind relativity theory, which rejects the belief that there is an absolute truth applying for all times and places on any question. Almost paradoxically, what is regarded as a most objective theory also led to an increased appreciation of the role of subjectivity both in nature and consequently in all human affairs, especially in the human sciences and philosophy. It is the relation of the observer to whatever is observed that decides the character of the observation, which is reflected in much C20th philosophy.

The theory of relativity is still the best-supported, 'universal' theory, having stood up the most exacting experimental tests for a century. Einstein predicted otherwise unimaginable states of affairs, such as the slowing of time at great velocity (now experimentally proven) and the extraordinary Bohr-Einstein condensate (neither a solid, a liquid or a gas) - which would form near to absolute zero, which was only seen 70 years later after decades of work by many major laboratories.

The key insight is that absolutely no observation is possible independently of the observing consciousness or mind. The human brain or mind always interprets what it perceives according to what it has already learned. Observation is always influenced by individual memory, subconscious inclination or habit, and the person's aims or direction of interest. This 'subjective ingredient' of every perception can be neutralized (if not always entirely subtracted or eliminated) by various means:-
1) reductive analysis of the individual's pre-perceptual propensities and mental habits together with the conceptual mindset involved
2) by comparison with the aggregate of perceptions by large numbers of other observers of the same data from differing backgrounds and circumstances... which reaches its ultimate expression in scientific knowledge.

The phrase 'everything is relative' is often used to apply to all questions pertaining to human experience, not just to objects in space and material quantities, but to all our perceptions and every thought and feeling etc. that arises from them. It emphasises that all perceptions are 'subjective' and raises the question of the relation between perceiving minds (subjects) and what is perceived ('objects') (Note: Einstein's general theory of relativity does not refer to - or adequately explain - the basis for the 'relativity' of all human perceptions by far, nor even everything about the behaviour of material objects (not at the level of everyday perception of things nor even at the micro-physical level). Perceived 'objects' are far from all being physical objects or events 'outside' us, but include our 'inner perceptions' of internal states as sensations, feelings, thoughts, and all conceptions generated with them as a basis.

Subjective uniqueness and the objective:

All my experience is subjective and so is yours. But this does not mean that all of it is private. It can be shared, though not immediately or directly, but only through communication of one or another kind. The subjectivity of all our sensations, perceptions, feelings, thoughts, and conceptions does not arise always or only from our subjective inner world, for there are objects beyond or control and even beyond ken, be they neurones in the brain or from anywhere in space-time. Such objects are independent of any one individual, and are common to all who may perceive them.

The causes of responses in the human brain to stimuli come largely from outside the brain or else from reflections in memory of such stimuli's effects. People's perceptions of the same object or event are not necessarily entirely the same, and their interpretation of what they perceptions can differ most greatly. There can be inter-subjective agreement about perceptions or otherwise, just as there may or may not be agreement of interpretation or opinion.

Whatever originates beyond the conscious brain or mind - as well as what it invokes for a person - will always be more or less transitory, for everything changes given time, and not least also the mind and personality-identity of every person.

Each of us was began to grow up into what can perhaps best be called a 'historically-prejudiced' consciousness. Perceptions, ideas, beliefs, ideologies, certainties, doubts and confusions are all conditioned by one's figurative cradle. How confining or otherwise this proves to be will depend not least upon upbringing and the development of personal qualities, upon the degree and kind of autonomy of being that is allowed or encouraged. The chrysalis of accepted truths, from childhood to maturity and beyond. The transformation from whatever herd instincts or cultural leanings one acquired into a free-thinks, self-observant and knowledgeable spirit requires the inspiration and also the hard knocks of the wider personal experience the better. Not that all personal experience is positive, for one's experiences can be so fruitless, debilitating or ruinous that it quells the spirit.

Based in natural science or physics, the insight into relative inter-dependency of observer and the observed is reflected in the increasing understanding of the role of subjectivity in all human affairs, especially as reflected in the human sciences and in much C20th philosophy. What we think, feel - or anything we observe or do - gets its character and meaning only in relation to who, where and when we are, and not to any absolute given or fixed measure or standard truth. That is how one can come to the conclusion 'everything is subjective' - admittedly somewhat vague and hence potentially misleading. We cannot know anything other than as it appears to us from our 'subjective' standpoint, even when this agrees completely with what many others perceive from their unique standpoints. (For example, most people once apparently 'saw' and so subjectively believed that the sun went round the earth). Each thought is related to others and each action is part of an evolving chain of actions in a given environment, which also provides us with mental fodder of all kinds. Each of us is uniquely situated in relation to our own 'inner perceptions' and equally so towards each our surrounding physical and social environment.

However, everything that exists has thereby 'objectivity' in some respect, including subjective experience. Even a mirage is an objective phenomenon, though it it deceptive. A thought is a subjective mental event, but one having objective existence (for however long) in the mind that generated it. There is a vague idea held by most people, perhaps, that what is 'objective' is necessarily something which is material. The idea of a 'thing' or 'object' itself encourages this misleading way of generalising ('misplaced concreteness').

Relativism in Science and Philosophy: The huge successes of the theory of relativity in explaining and predicting accurately many physical events gave added impetus to that theory of knowledge known as relativism. Paradoxically, perhaps, there is no predominant theory of relativism in philosophy, though various thought systems assume some degree of relativism or else imply it. It is central to the phenomenology of Husserl, who showed clearly how relativism arises in different human sciences in the form of historicism, psychologism, sociologism, economism and so forth. Clearly, no philosophy which admits of the existence of an eternal creator or God (or even the possibility of such) can have integrated the insights of relativism, for these depend of an Absolute, a 'fixed point', whether this is called God, eternal truth, divine intelligence or whatever else. Each religion, each theology, holds itself to be the undeniable truth, and are thus in mutual conflict on countless points of doctrine. At the same time, each monotheistic religion has a different interpretation of the nature of their (totally imperceptible) Divinity, while other more primitively-conceived religions even have many deities.

Inevitable change: For us, everything is what it is only in perception. There is no other access to reality for us that does not build on our perceptions. They are ever changing and they frequently pass by again 'in review'. This makes 'everything' present itself as a flux, a changing universe where nothing observable is unendingly the same. The rate of changes in perceived 'phenomena' differ very greatly, but wide-ranging observation of the universe teaches that nothing remains unchanged for ever. This applies, of course, also to human ideas (which some once thought to be 'eternal forms') Not even the nature of our 'mental review' of ourselves or anything past or present can remain unchanged, as new perceptions are always accumulating as long as we live.

Understanding and relatedness: Elsewhere I have written: "It can safely be deduced from the evidence that human beings have learned to observe relations that pertain between natural things from the earliest of times, since livelihood often depended upon an extensive grasp of the nature of the earth, plants, animals and many of their interrelations. The early perception of such relationships is the fundament of other developments of our understanding of nature and much else besides. These are absorbed in the history of humanity and in each individual to whom this collective heritage is handed on.

Most human understanding soon moves on from direct perception of apparent relations between things to comparison of remembered perceptions and gradually develops towards more general ideas. The more basic kind of understanding starts from observation combined with some degree of reasoning. This experiential knowledge helps us in daily life, in making a living and in carrying out the many affairs of society. It helps fulfil the practical purposes of living. When such practical knowledge is extended through trial and error, comparison with other variants, experiments based on new ideas and so forth, the result is empirical science." These fairly obvious insights shows how knowledge arises from perceiving relations on an ever wider front, including gradually more phenomena.

Set religious belief vs. scientific comparison: Not only do most religions and their sub-sects and many political ideologies maintain their established beliefs and practices, but they tend mostly to resist the very idea of change, because of the challenge it poses to the absolutes or eternal verities they would rely upon and promulgate. Relativism in thought is a serious threat to ideologies (which means non-scientific systems of ideas) because it leads to comparison of differing systems of belief, spirituality, ideology, where a conflict of alleged 'truths' is inevitable between the main religions. Comparative religion and the the critique of ideology are rightly perceived as threats by all religious institutions and vested political systems respectively.

A majority of the earth's population is driven by the need for security of life and livelihood in the face of a threatening natural environment, in relating to death and all other matters which have overwhelmingly been far beyond human understanding for countless ages. Throughout the world, billions of religious believers are still labouring in dead-ends in the search for true knowledge - unwittingly bending under the scourge of obscurantist institutions and their unprovable and false doctrines. The human brain's proven tendency to recognise human features and figures in many perceptual contexts also contributes to the anthropomorphic belief in deities as having human figures and other human qualities, such as intelligence and creativity... multiplied in imagination to perfection.

The agonisingly slow growth of human knowledge - countless failed ideas, theories, endless blind alleys of opinion, and mutual ignorance and gross misunderstanding between human societies and cultures has led to tried and tested science and its amazing fruits - medicine, labour-saving and productive technology and confidence in human enterprise and learning. Yet though these achievements benefit a majority of mankind, the spread of the knowledge which sustains them is truly agonising, faced as it is by all manner of ignorant resistance and the force of misguided traditions... and above all, religious opinion.

The human need for security gave rise to a vast variety of traditional symbolic acts and beliefs concerning the unknown. These coagulated into religious cultures and eventually into scriptures and theologies, subsequently also into political ideologies and a variety of theories from the plausible to the fantastic. All too often, the belief component of religious and secular ideologies overwhelmed and excluded the empirical observations which were emerging as practical and theoretical scientific knowledge advanced. This struggle continues to this day, traditional religions and ideologies being basically too rigid for radical changes and the force of custom and vested interest behind them resisting change to the last moment possible.