Article 73: Truth as Value Adding
To kick things off, let us consider the following from Iain McGilchrist's The Matter with Things, Chapter 26 Value:
Not a few readers for example, may be surprised by my including value alongside time, space, motion, consciousness and matter as a constitutive element of reality. Yet I believe it is as foundational as consciousness. ...
Next, let us read a few more excerpts from the same author and Chapter:
I see value as intrinsic to the universe; and the possibility of appreciating and responding to value – therefore fulfilling its potential – as one reason for the cosmos having evolved life. Indeed, life could be seen as the very process of the cosmic consciousness continually both discovering and furthering its beauty, truth, and goodness; both contemplating and (not separately but in the same indivisible act) bringing them further into being: a process.
This is not surprising if awareness is foundational to the universe, rather than arising from it late in the day. ... As Theise and Kafatos put it, ‘the universe is non-material, self-organizing throughout, comprised of a holarchy 1 of complementary, process-driven, recursive phenomena. The universe is both its own first observer and subject.’ ...
What are values? ‘There is something in common between truth, beauty, and goodness’, writes Andrew Steane, Professor of Physics at Oxford: ‘they each make demands on us, and also fulfil us, and also leave us thirsty for more.’ Values evoke a response in us and call us to some end. They are what give meaning to life: such things as beauty, goodness, truth – and purpose. Science can tell us what their brain correlates may be, but cannot help us understand their nature. It can, though, help us misunderstand them. ....
... when science turns its gaze directly on values, it immediately begins to account for them in terms of something else assumed to be more fundamental. But for ultimate values there can be no such thing, much as there can be no such thing in the case of consciousness. In an age when it is widely thought that science alone can answer our questions, values may therefore become overlooked – and even devalued. Not a few readers for example, may be surprised by my including value alongside time, space, motion, consciousness and matter as a constitutive element of reality. Yet I believe it is as foundational as consciousness. ...
Truth carries within it the whole purpose of science, and gives meaning to its activities. However, science will not admit anything that is not empirically verifiable – yet the value of truth, like all value, is incapable of empirical proof. ...
Not all values are fundamental in this way. In particular utilitarian values are not: they are derived from the value of pleasure. But some, like beauty and goodness – and indeed meaning and purpose, as I shall later suggest – are not derivable in this way. Even if they led to suffering we would be right to hold them as non-negotiable, and indeed to hold them in reverence. To value such values.
In Article 72, we read the following excerpt from one of President Xi Jinping’s recent speeches at the BRICS+ Conference in South Africa wherein several speakers proclaimed that the Age of the Hegemon was over and the New Age of Multipolarity has begun. Or maybe they implied, not said it at the Conference. For someone who openly proclaimed it a few months ago, read 'The West must prepare for a long overdue Reckoning'. In any case, I also proclaimed it yesterday in Article 72 as Point 1: “The New World Order is already here: ...”
Here is the excerpt again, which is delivered as a third party report via the CPC:
At the CPC in Dialogue with World Political Parties High-level Meeting held on March 15, 2023, President Xi Jinping delivered a keynote speech titled “Join Hands on the Path Toward Modernization.” In it he proposed the Global Civilizations Initiative (GCI), which calls for in-depth inter-civilization exchanges and dialogue through political parties as well as the advancement of human civilizations based on inclusiveness and mutual learning. This represents another effort by China to contribute its wisdom and solutions to promoting greater international cooperation.
Shared human values are the basis of inter-civilization exchanges and development
Human civilizations have different development trajectories, but they have the same core values, which are the spiritual bonds that connect civilizations, countries, and nations, as well as the underlying force behind the progress of humankind. President Xi called for the promotion of shared human values of peace, development, fairness, justice, democracy, and freedom in 2015. They are the consensus of various civilizations and reflect universally recognized values, and they provide the impetus for building a global community of shared future.
While championing these common values, we also need to appreciate their connotations for other civilizations and respect the approaches that other countries and peoples adopt to realize them. With this in mind, we should seek common ground while putting aside differences, oppose uniting only with like-minded people while alienating those with different views, and refrain from imposing our own values and models on others and from ideological aggression. These points embody the meaning and the fundamental requirements of our shared human values. Only by upholding openness, inclusiveness, and mutual respect can these values be truly upheld and an even closer global community of shared future be built.
First, a philosophical quibble: the attentive Reader (!) may have noticed that the core values expressed by McGilchrist, namely ‘beauty, goodness, truth’ vary somewhat from Xi’s expressed value above, namely ‘peace, development, fairness, justice, democracy and freedom.’ To be fair to Xi, he is a national leader discussing civilization State related core values whereas McGilchrist is discussing fundamental human being values.
First, are they both saying the same thing in different ways and second if the latter, what are the key differences? I would say that beauty is missing in Xi’s list, however goodness is found in every value on Xi’s list, and a truth quotient surely dwells within any notion of justice and perhaps also fairness, ideally also in democracy (the expressed will of the people is a form of societal truth).
So although not the same, and with the important exception of beauty, the two lists are not all that far apart. And yet here comes another quibble. Let us look again at the following paragraph from McGilchrist:
when science turns its gaze directly on values, it immediately begins to account for them in terms of something else assumed to be more fundamental. But for ultimate values there can be no such thing, much as there can be no such thing in the case of consciousness. In an age when it is widely thought that science alone can answer our questions, values may therefore become overlooked – and even devalued. Not a few readers for example, may be surprised by my including value alongside time, space, motion, consciousness and matter as a constitutive element of reality. Yet I believe it is as foundational as consciousness. ...
And now look again at Xi’s list of values:
President Xi called for the promotion of shared human values of peace, development, fairness, justice, democracy, and freedom in 2015. They are the consensus of various civilizations and reflect universally recognized values, and they provide the impetus for building a global community of shared future.
Is it just me, or does it not Xi’s language – though admittedly delivered via a bureaucratic third party voice (designed, perhaps, to add the weight of objectivity) – seem strongly toned with dispassionate, quasi-scientific objectivity? Is not this the sort of style and perspective expected of a great Leader? Does not Putin also often reference ‘objective truth’ or ‘objective history’ in his speeches? Is this not also a Marxist (materialist) perspective?
The point being that just as the scientific perspective divorces itself by design from any feeling for the subject being examined under its reductionist gaze, is it not possible that modern leaders, of which Xi is a currently prominent example, are similarly afflicted with this philosophically fashionable form of contemporary myopia?
We wonders, aye, we wonders Precious!!
I do not think it mere coincidence that the only one of McGilchrist’s ‘beauty, goodness and truth’ values, which he posits alongside ‘space motion consciousness and matter as constitutive elements of reality’, - namely beauty - is missing from Xi’s list. It is the softest, most feminine, most intuitive, most subjective, and least utilitarian, practical or easily defined Value of the three. I am not attacking Xi or China necessarily, however I am raising a warning flag in wondering out loud if the values presented are not overly colored by modern-day reductionist materialism which nearly all of us cleave to, albeit mainly without acknowledging it.
The twist here is to see how the perspective from Science, or Scientism, insists on separating itself from its object of enquiry, which is the universe itself. It posits an external, self-existing so-called ‘objective’ reality which exists absent any experience, or therefore experiencer of that reality. This is an unverifiable postulate, or assumption, therefore exists in the realm of belief or faith.
As McGilchrist points out elsewhere in this fascinating Chapter 26, the root of the word ‘truth’ is the same as ‘troth’ which comes down to faith, as in keeping faith, something chosen. The word ‘dao’ as many Daoists use it, means Way or Path as well as meaning the ultimate Truth of the way things are. It is a way of living deliberately chosen, a Way to which one makes a commitment to fashion one’s life and perceptions, one’s actions and feelings, in accordance with this Way. Seeing Truth involves choice; moreover, it is not an objective external Truth to which one can make such a commitment for the commitment itself IS the Way. How one behaves with one’s family, friends and fellow citizens is the result of personally held principles and practices, one’s Dao. Viewed, or rather experienced, this way, clearly Truth is not a quality which can be measured by the reductionist Scientific Method.
So that Dao or Way is the result of holding to Values such as Beauty, Goodness and Truth. First to see them – which takes care and effort over time – and then to cherish them, and then to manifest and promote them in this our shared World. In this context, let us again attend:
I see value as intrinsic to the universe; and the possibility of appreciating and responding to value – therefore fulfilling its potential – as one reason for the cosmos having evolved life. Indeed, life could be seen as the very process of the cosmic consciousness continually both discovering and furthering its beauty, truth, and goodness; both contemplating and (not separately but in the same indivisible act) bringing them further into being: a process.
This is not surprising if awareness is foundational to the universe, rather than arising from it late in the day. ... As Theise and Kafatos put it, ‘the universe is non-material, self-organizing throughout, comprised of a holarchy of complementary, process-driven, recursive phenomena. The universe is both its own first observer and subject.’ ...
It would do the world a great service if, working with philosophers, artists and whomever world wide, the leading Multipolarists pushing for a New World Order these days were to put together a list of Core Civilizational Values for all member nations as guidelines so that, along with retaining their unique character and traditions, they can also see resonance between all other civilizations which value ‘beauty, goodness and truth’, which I would suggest should definitely make it onto that list!
Supplemental Section:
President Xi was right to emphasize shared Values as essential in putting together a better geopolitical Way. Indeed, according to this article, a Chinese gentleman helped craft the original United Nations Declaration of Human Rights in 1947 along value-centric lines. Here are some paragraphs from a speech given from Oriental Health Watch, July 31, 2023: Zhang Wei, Dean of the Chinese Institute of Fudan University, Professor.
In promoting human rights, the Chinese philosophy, practice, and wisdom have all broken through the long-term Western dominant concept of human rights. This makes me think of Mr. Zhang Pengchun, a Chinese outstanding scholar and diplomat who made outstanding contributions to this in the 1940s. Zhang Pengchun was born in Tianjin in 1892, graduated from Nankai Middle School, and later stayed in the United States. He received a doctorate from Columbia University in 1923. After returning home, he served as the dean of Tsinghua School and a professor at Nankai University. He is an educator and drama activist who has studied in the Chinese and Western languages. After the outbreak of the anti-war in 1937, Zhang Pengchun was called by the government to promote the anti-war overseas and fight for foreign aid. He was later transferred to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as an envoy abroad and once served as the Chinese ambassador to Chile. In 1946, Zhang Pengchun attended the first United Nations General Assembly held in London, England, and later served as China’s representative to the UN Security Council. In early 1947, the UN Economic and Social Council decided to establish a Human Rights Commission to draft the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Zhang Pengchun was elected as the sole vice chairman of this committee.
In the process of drafting the document, Zhang Pengchun contributed a lot of unique Chinese wisdom. First, he advocated that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights should integrate the wisdom of different civilizations. He proposed that the concept of Confucianism “Ren” should be regarded as a basic trait of mankind in conjunction with the concept of “rationality”. He translated the words “Ren” into “ the perception between people ” and “ the empathy for the situation of others ”. His proposal was finally adopted. The first article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted in 1948 was worded as follows: “ Everyone is born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience, and should be treated in the spirit of brotherhood ”. The word “conscience” here is conscience in English, which is the English expression of the concept of “Ren”.
Secondly, in the process of drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Right, many countries from the Christian tradition proposed similar human beings created by “ Creator ”, “ God ” human rights, etc. Concepts, and Zhang Pengchun clearly objected, pointing out that the purpose of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is to be universally accepted by countries of different faith, so it cannot be limited to a certain culture or religious tradition.
In addition, he emphasized that social and economic rights are also an important part of human rights. At that time, Western countries such as the United States and Britain emphasized civil and political rights, and believed that the economic, social and cultural rights advocated by the Soviet Union, such as the right to work, education, and the right to social assistance, were not enforceable and should not be counted as human rights. Zhang Pengchun expressed his views on Chinese culture as an example. He said that long before those concepts became modern concepts, the Chinese's discussion on economic and social justice had a history of at least 2,500 years. He quoted the 《 Avenue trip in the 》 note “, and the world is public... People do not kiss themselves, they do not have their own children, they end their old age, they are useful for their strength, they are young, widowed, widowed, lonely, lonely, and waste-affected people are all common. Zhang Pengchun’s claim was supported by the Soviet camp countries and Latin American countries at the time. Eventually, Universal Declaration of Human Rights placed social and economic rights as equally important.
Finally, he insisted that “obligation” is as important as “right”. Zhang Pengchun repeatedly emphasized that in Chinese culture, rights and obligations are linked. A person can only progress his moral level if he realizes his obligations, and the purpose of the United Nations should be to increase people’s moral heights, not to promote extreme selfish individualism. His claim is finally reflected in Article 29, paragraph 1, of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that is, everyone is obliged to society, because only his personality in society is possible Free and full development”.
Looking back at the Chinese wisdom provided by Mr. Zhang Pengchun for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, especially the balance of reason and conscience he emphasized, the balance of rights and obligations, the balance of economic and social rights and civil political rights, today No evaluation is enough. In the more than seventy years after the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, how many killings, tragedies, and disasters have our human society experienced, and the reasons for their investigations are not the destruction of these balances？Here, we admire not only the vision, knowledge and wisdom of a Chinese outstanding scholar and diplomat, but also the profound wisdom of Chinese civilization and its high modernity.
The speech above makes a distinction between Rights and Obligations. The latter is similar in principle to appreciating Values as having an active aspect as well as passive. (Hence 'value adding' in the Title.) Values are things that are valued which is something that happens both spontaneously and also as a result of care and disciplined cultivation over time, as with a well loved garden or family member. Rights sounds a little like something which exists apart from the person possessing them, another seemingly external, objective thing, so maybe another way in which the reductionist mindset compromised dealing head-on with the notion of Values. In any case, the question raised here is whether or not modern world leaders like Xi Jinping are paying attention to, i.e. actively valuing, core values or rather watered-down reductionist equivalents. Given he often brings ‘modernization’ and ‘development’ into any consideration of values, this remain an open question worth keeping in mind, and as such – an open question - is where we will leave it in this Article.
1 https://www.sociocracy.info/holon-and-holarchy/ This is a very interesting term viewing hierarchy as a series of inter-relationships between parts and wholes, rather than higher and lower etc.