Search results

Truth is sometimes thought to be primarily an aspect of inner experience unique & essentially incommunicable or thought to lie in consensus & to consist of what all honest & technically qualified observers can agree on. The subjective approach appears to be more congenial to the extreme SC's, both Uc & Lc, while objectivity is more Ply the posture congenial to members of the Mc. Empiricism, indeed sci itself, is essentially Mc. The growth of sci is inconceivable apart from the simultaneous rise of a Me able to profit by progress & of fiscal & gov'al institutions able to insure the material future well enough to encourage investment. The shift toward empirical dominance has been a soc, pol'al, technological one. It has led into positions of mastery those who have most effectively committed themselves to an empirical posture toward all experience - who have either silenced their inner voice or taught it, when a choice must be made, to defer to the facts & to the kind of reality which can be treated factually. Much that we call anti-intellectualism in the modern world is anti-subjectivism. What is feared & avoided is really the intellectual activity of humanists who still depend to some extent on internal validation to give them confidence in what they say. The Lc individual today does not usually have enough sense of the stable properties of life to temper his subjectivity. Unlike the Mc man he can still listen to his inner voice & he knows no better source of truth. He has no basis for telling when it is talking nonsense. Educ would help with this, but we have no Lc educ - only a system by which Lc youngsters who want to can be admitted to the LMc Sch's. Lc truth is likely to remain even in adulthood quite purely idiotic. Like Uc truth, it is essentially subjective, but it is much weaker in its sense of time. Above all, it is deficient in symbols so that there are almost no possibilities of abstraction. There is hope in the growing Me tencency to insist on more variety & on uniqueness. V.D. Sanua.