Description

This apparent contradiction divided philosophers who followed the strict rules of logic for millennia. They are known as nominalists and realists and their "silly" argument about a crack of thunder heard by nobody resurfaces every now and then (a few centuries apart). Does it make a "ka-boom"?

Plato's forgeries (see Peter Kingsley: In the Dark Places of WISDOM) were the first documented attempt to tip the scales towards a vote of "yes, it does make a ka-boom even if nobody hears it". This created a belief that, phenomena we perceive exist "out there" as we perceive them (realism/objectivity). Carried by this vote, modern science went as far it could, but closing the loop by a re-introducing the observer (subjectivity) became inevitable through the weight of scientific evidence that tips the scales towards a "no" vote.

Richard Dawkins established an analogy to evolution of physical forms in biology -evolution of ideas within a culture. He also coined a new word "meme" (mental gene) - the unit of thought as a building block of our cultures.

I would suggest that both, the knowledge (culture) and the perception evolved with us - supporting each other. With this, Richard Dawkins' analogy cease to be analogy and becomes an integral part of the phenomenon we call life.

Virtually all forms of life could be viewed either as a cooperative society - culture of its components or as a unique single unit that interacts with its environment, multiplies and evolves.

Our spoken, human language does appear to have another dimension that could not be observed at the level of electrochemical reactions within a cell for example.

A culture requires communication - a language. It does not really matter which form this language takes. Thus we could speak of a language in the form of electro-chemical reactions within a cell, electro-chemical reactions of another kind between cells of the same "specialisation", electro-chemical "messages" carried between societies of cells of various "specialisations" by groups of cells "specialised" to carry messages and of course - our own spoken language. From this perspective, single units are not unique and they are replaceable.

A single unit at any level of any form of life (including us) - is unique, irreplaceable and "subjective" (self-referral). The "subjectivity" is a phenomenon that can be experienced only from within a single unit and ultimately speaking we can talk about it only on the basis of our own experiences inferring "subjectivities" of others or "subjectivities" of other forms of life. However, this is the perspective that gives life (richness of the world) to our cultural "imprint". Only through interplay of both perspectives we can reach a better understanding of each of them.

As the latest studies of orang-utans and other primates indicate, even hints of a language enable transfer of knowledge from one single unit to another building and enriching our individual "descriptions of the world and ourselves within it". This leads to the emergence of a culture in which knowledge can be passed from one generation to another - tested, revised and enriched within each individual "description of the world and ourselves within it".

This accumulation of knowledge has limits imposed by our individual descriptions of the world and ourselves within it - that have to be optimised. The optimisation "shortens" the descriptions through introduction of higher levels of abstractions and different "arrangements". Our optimised "descriptions of the world and ourselves within it" lead to further refinements of the language and enrichment of our culture - our culture evolves and with this each new individual "description of the world and ourselves within it" is enhanced from the start.

However, even these enhancements have their limits. Recognition and cooperation between cultures became necessary and that leads to the birth of civilisation and phenomenon we call consciousness.

Although overlaid by higher levels of abstractions, reorganised and optimised by the "cultural imprint" we grow into, "our description of the world that surrounds us and ourselves within it" has a different, life giving origin. Origin that gives us the "richness of the world" of our transient now.

I would suggest that "our description of the world around us and ourselves within it" emerges (see Complexity) from the interplay of countless "descriptions..." within us - on all levels and between all levels that is overlaid by the "imprint" of the culture we grew into. This might explain how we can see the richness of the world our brain cannot see but our eyes can and how we can relate this richness to our highly abstract symbols (sketchy images) of the culture we grew into.