The purpose of these essays is exposition of certain facts regarding 'the human condition' -what it is, how it became 'that way' and 'what direction in some infinite scheme of things mankind is taking', but the reason for them is that attaching 'some
certainty of direction' there is a potential for facilitating its 'melioration':
'The human condition' is about as all-purpose a phrase as one could conjure up for the mixed-bag of real-life situations, poet's 'joys and sorrows' and rationalizations we 'choose' or find ourselves 'being driven' into. It includes nevertheless, in science, a properly phenomenological accounting for the etiology of the condition -the basis of these essays. What 'ponderers' and ministrators do, traditionally, is associate a certain 'humanity' and 'propriety' (the way things 'ought' to be) with the manipulation and resolution of problems developing (typically unappreciated by either of them) out of what are primitive vertebrate pecking-order and various 'primitively disquieting physically-unanswerable's and imponderables'. -But the human condition is first and above all an animal condition intrinsic any evolution of 'coalescing deliberative capability out of ignorance and pecking-order' -perhaps the only way to characterize this progression of ignorant-born progeny. It is out of this last point that 'fixing it is not a matter of choice' nor is there some 'proper' way to do so -especially not 'out' of it -essentially what everyone is in some motion of doing.
[the human condition: a phrase generally referring to the class of problems inherent of circumstance or eventuality in various interpersonal or inter-association memberships. Because of the absence of an unambiguous framework of problem
encompass and resolution acceptable to all its various principals, furthermore, problems of 'the human condition' tend to be 'only locally and immediately resolvable and/or only partially so at best'.
In effect, what was once the domain of the shaman and clan-head has evolved and become (but no better) that of the theorist and the scientist (and -yes, even the mathematician). Underlying and permeating the whole however, there remains a certain
nebulosity of definition and problem. Teachers and mentors ask (rhetorically) 'Why study history?' -intending our discovery of civil, moral and other 'truths hidden there', but history only confirms the etiology of 'the condition', and the only lesson to
be learned is that that etiology has generally gone unnoticed or been misunderstood or discounted, the information 'misappropriated'. What history does rather, is give us someone's high-order interpretation of otherwise dissectably real situations
and their consequences. But it does not tell us -nor can it, how a 'potentially knowledgeable mankind' (i.e. H sapiens) should think and act. The best information we have is that which is phenomenological, and begging unanswerable questions
(because they can be asked -'Why would we be able to ask them otherwise?') that cannot be approached phenomenologically, only corrupts answers with conjured misinformation and digression.
The fact is that there is not reliably transportable among us knowledge of the phenomenology lying beneath 'human values', and therefore we do not use logically coherent criteria for advancing tastes and life-style-and-quality decisions
based largely in primitive vertebrate evolution.
The 'problem of the human condition' then, is that we have little understanding of what 'wrong' means or what makes us want to 'fix it' or 'make it better' let alone how to do so. There is, in fact, a nature and course of human
evolution and progression(*e) -but nowhere an academe for its pursuit, thus we are only now, so-to-speak, beginning to probe the etiology, structure and future of a human condition at least one-and-a-half-million-years in development.
Other mutation and factors aside, our evolution is primarily one of aristocratization -hominids superceding each other thru increasing deliberative capability. If we also (and properly) include reproduction however, then it is that same (advancing knowledge facilitation), but with 'replenishing injections of neonate ignorance'. The only melioration then, is deliberation out of the 'wonderments, imponderables and physically-unanswerable's (god and other spirit beliefs for example) that youth ignorantly bumbles into or invents on its own, and out of ministering to 'natural human rights and freedoms' and other such noumenalisms(*1) that, susceptible, youth innocently inherits. To understand this is to be confronted by 'an intrinsically hierarchic progression (mankind) heuristically advancing its nature and constitution (human-being) while at the same time `suffering its own re-evolution'.
One might ask why anyone should care about such a built-in and seemingly 'immeliorable' condition -especially of such mass? The answer is that aside from being physically involved (alive or dead), we have our own and all other and future existence
-and 'condition', at stake. The further fact is that we have more knowledge than we think, and influence which depends only upon the extent to which that knowledge is assimilated and imposed to make it physically manifest. In this respect, one has
only to analyze virtually any discussion today -carefully, for its 'forensic integrity' (below)- to find the basic substance of human interaction little changed from the animal-hominidism that eons ago diasporated into an uninhabited world of
eventual communities. Language and society have evolved and become more complex and codified, but 'joys and sorrows' and 'the human condition' are much the same 'philosophically' observed several thousand years ago; it is still 'soft-science and
humanistic government philosophics that minister to moral, ethical, social, economic and other problems'. What is further the case however, is that we are beginning to understand the etiology underlying this human phenomenon, and we are
beginning to understand then, that we can meliorate that 'human condition' -even if only heuristically.
The soft sciences and the humanities have long had a dialectics more or less high-order-coalesced out of an increasingly known but relatively little assimilated phenomenology of 'perceived human properties'. Religious practice for example, fundamentalist in particular, is a paralogical construction out of solely physical properties and mechanics that have nothing to do with what is noumenon 'spirit' or some 'indefinable consciousness'. It is rather, practice sprung out of primitive, hominid sexuality -congregational belonging for reproduction that eventually evolved into an inseparable idle-time communion and an eventually communal and circumstantially pseudo-secular understanding of one's world about him: phlogiston or god, it is 'assimilable explanation' that provides a certain stabilizing reliability for primitive dealing with otherwise unexplainable and frequently fearsome phenomena.
Evolution however, operates only thru physically registrable and assimilable situations or circumstances, and it is the transportability of knowledge -phenomenology, that increasingly accounts for evolution beyond neanderthal. Forensic
integrity(*2) in human affairs, consequently, will continue to be a major difficulty where some level of misreading, misinterpretation and misstatement is inherently unavoidable. What we have to understand then, is that we are
ineluctably drawn into displacing soft-science theorization by better understanding ourselves out of purely physical mechanisms and consequences, and that we improve ability to do so by doing so deliberately. All in all, `It is a machine
that goes by itself'.
[There is a universal and all-too-consuming belief that the human phenomenon is 'too much to grasp', too much to be 'logically' explained. Nor for that matter, do most of us want it explained -the veil removed: it would be 'un-mankindish' of us to find
fault with things we have evolved and progressed into accepting (shouting even, 'Smart decision!') over one-and-a-half-million years evolution. Important as 'congregation and comfort' are however, 'it is the nature of evolution not to care about such
specifically hominid-being properties'. It is rather 'the nature of human evolution' to operate upon and be operated upon by the fact and consequences of deliberative capability in 'a geologically greater framework of time' -discovering
the phenomenology, even if only qualified by statistics'.]
Primitives of this material have been engaged since at least something of a 'neanderthal condition', but habit and tradition do not validate the 'hominid-being noumenalisms' of our existence -nor, for that matter, is there any 'having to engage them'
-except perhaps out of rhetorical or circumstantial indulgence. 'The nature
and constitution of human-being' (or some superceding H cogitans) on the other hand, is a matter of criteria developing (heuristically) out of 'obligations and sensitivities to a sexually congregational organism of deliberative
capability' -determined by the phenomenology of the organism and applied with forensic integrity.
The fact is that insofar as any phenomenology at all has been 'deliberated' to exist -and it does by very existence of science and mathematics, then there is a system in that deliberation and also then, a System of Human
Experience which encompasses among other aspects of any 'organism-being and its universe'(*3), an accounting for our failure to see it. We are 'creatures of habit'
-congregational sexuality, communal occupation and belonging, and even something of an 'idle-mind-time occupation', and there is consequently, a momentum in this 'hominid-being and idiomatics' that conveniences everyone, scientist and
mathematician included, past acceding 'so unfeeling such a system'.
Ultimately, it is the assimilation of this 'herein such' material that invests our progression and determines 'the nature and constitution of human-being'. And insofar as some critic says 'Any position is -ultimately, dogmatic', it is because of these
facts that these essays are held to something of 'an axiomatics' extrapolated from the physical sciences and mathematics. -To deal otherwise, in some soft-science or humanist sense, is to 'sit down and eat with philosophers and theorists of the
human condition and have for dessert (also traditional) the number of angels (dancing or otherwise) on the head of a pin' -four thousand years or more of known such dialectics.
-These essays constitute a study in macroanthropology, and 'the human condition' then, is but an artifact of continuing human evolution and progression.
The reader is invited to sample overall rationale thru either of two very short essays, one on 'the nature of knowledge as thus-far evolved', Organizational Aspects of 'The Human Phenomenon and Things Human', and the second on the nature of its coevolving language, Roget's Thesaurus and 'The System of Human Experience'. A third note addresses the matter of scientific integrity thru discussion of one of the more important concepts developed here, the idea of Relationals.
*1 - 'phenomenon' and 'noumenon' must be understood for the 'logical antitheses' of each other that they are.
*2 - forensic integrity: essential consistency and nonambiguity in commuunication (oral or written), and therefore essential reliance upon rigorously qualified definitions to the exclusion of 'noumena'. This subject is discussed more deeply in The Matter of Forensic Integrity.
*3 - 'Roget's Thesaurus' and The System of Human Experience identifies a 'systematics' intrinsic the thesaurus. This system is discussed in detail in the referenced 'System of Human Experience and in Organizational Aspects of The Human Phenomenon and Things Human.
'How Deliberative Capability Works' (et cetera)
1 - Is there such a thing as The Nature and Course of Human Evolution that can be abstracted out of science today?
2 - Does that 'nature and course' suggest some 'merit' in understanding and pursuing it? -and if so, what is that 'potential merit'?
3 - Is there some 'best' way of advancing that knowledge and 'inevitablility' given the fact that (however circumstantially) ours is 'a world democracy of ignorantly autonomous individuals, peoples and nations'?
First posted: November 12, 1995; Last modified: March 12, 2009