In a class learning about meditation and its benefits, a professor stated, "various cultures around the world have been doing these practices for thousands of years, and in Western cultures, we need a scientific back-up to believe in it." I think this is reflective of the development of Western thought anchored in science, its role in defining "modernity" and its presence embedded deeply in all of us who consider ourselves "modern." I remember talking to a friend of mine, excitedly telling her about what I saw in a documentary-- how differences in Western and Eastern psychology and culture are reflected in their languages. She said, "half of it sounds like bullshit." But a scientific proof was not of import here. It was the powerful and evident possibility, which was all the more probable if we reflect it on our own psychology and culture. The findings held certain truths, although there weren't any MRI-captured images of neurotransmitter's movements. The topic went back further than history of science, and it was way beyond what science can find right now.

It may be beneficial at times and harmful at another, but at least it is very clear: our minds are ridden with science.

And science sometimes distracts us totally. From the essential battle of values or accepting certain truths that is not found in a laboratory. As much as science helps us in variety of ways, we should be able to function without having a science mindset, or a science-worship. What is psychology and neuroscience-- if we construct buildings out of them for their own sake, rather than forming them into a staircase, on which we try to transcend ourselves, stepping on the findings as the launchpad? We should be able to make ourselves do ten more push-ups than last time, without the disciplinary drill sergeant with the scientific Exhibit A, B and C. Or at least get ourselves to start doing some push-ups (probably harder to do this). In other words, we should be able to believe in meditation and power of spirits and minds, or think about cultures and see clearly through them-- without having to refer to science all the time.

'But science helps us motivate ourselves to do that, doesn't it? Certain facts help us get our mind to do certain things. Like, believing in the benefits of meditation. Or like, understanding that our mind may not be good at math and accepting that. Also, our belief become stronger because it is true. And our opinions become further developed with carefulness.' But I think some pursue science for the sake of furthering science. What is science, if it becomes end of itself? "Scientific work is chained to the course of progress," (Max Weber's Science as a Vocation) where a new discovery adds to the knowledge, only to be shadowed by the next. There is no first-person development in the a third-person one. Scientists may rejoice in finding something, but they did not transcend or improve anything for themselves. More often, people study science to become professional with an MD or as a certified engineer, not for furthering and improving ourselves. Because science earns us good enough salary, social status, and fascinating distraction, we don't think first-person. Just third-person science.

And for the non-scientists, now we just need a scientific backing to believe in anything. We become much more skeptical for anything unscientific. Anything without charts and graphs and strong correlations. We don't live by conviction, convince with conviction. Politics are much less driven by pure belief. We now have a clusterfuck of slanted interpretation and deployment of facts and figures, to scientifically validate our beliefs. Clean facts muddles what we really believe in. Politics as well as life should come down to values, not facts and figures, because there is no absolutely superior value through which we should live. Science tries to argue that one belief is better than the other. Perhaps it is for the given historical context; the problem is that we always think in those absolute terms of truth and superiority of scientific backings. But politics and life should need things like faith in a certain vision for the future, and discipline to practice it and spread it. Not science. These just needed hearts willing to devote.

(If it is your "value" to say that it is justified to simply dedicate oneself in science, I will have to grant that choice, just worried that that down that path you might find yourself a little less fulfilled than you hoped.)

But I am screaming here for more first-person observations, experiences, emotions, and arising from all of that, belief. Belief requires us to not only to trust the facts, but also to have felt it. Feeling is as concrete as anything else in the world. Subjectivity is what we live through. You may wish to abandon it for objectivity, but you can't. (William James' Varieties of Religious Experiences) So we should uphold it and feel, feel, feel.

And as aforementioned, from all this should arise a clear belief, and the constantly evolving method of living based on whatever the belief. The value for oneself. Not necessarily political, but vital to living. "Life is an unceasing struggle of these gods [values] with one another. Or speaking directly, the ultimately possible attitudes toward life are irreconcilable, and hence their struggle can never be brought to a final conclusion. Thus it is necessary to make a decisive choice." I opt to feel as much as possible. To hurt myself as much as possible. To feel most alive as possible. To feel conflicted and rejoiced and worried and unfulfilled and fulfilled and unworried. And believe that these thoughts and experiences will see further than the telescope of science sees.

Therefore, I believe in magical elevator-pulling unicorns.

Sadly, this is the scientifically rational voice of mine.

Mothagesso.