An Open Letter to the Reality Based Community

The term "reality based community" (RBC) is rather snarky.  It seems to be used by those who wish to distinguish themselves from groups that base their opinions on religious doctrine, tradition or on their own self interest.  For example, if one believes that interventions to stop global warming could harm ones economic interest one might be resistant to new information supportive of the global warming phenomena.

The RBC claims that their opinions are based on common sense and scientific evidence.  It's snarky because it infers that those who are not part of the community, that have divergent beliefs, are irrational or don't have any common sense.

 I've always admired science and math, though my abilities to comprehend such matters are minimal.  And, I'm embarrassed to say, I have a tendency to enjoy sneering at those with whom I disagree.  The RBC denigrates others not because of differences of opinion, esthetics or tradition, but on what they claim are cold facts, logic, reality.  I used to be a member of the RBC.

I recently read chapter VI of Man's Supreme Inheritance by FM Alexander.  This chapter, in part, is a response to letter written to FM by a Mr. William Archer.  It seems to me that Mr. Archer was arguing that there should be limits to ones open-mindedness.  For example, he worried that the process of becoming open to the possibility that, say, astrology might be useful would require him to unmoor himself from reality to such an extent that he fears he would lose his mind.  The RBC continues such logic to say that the astrologers are crazy.

But FM's response is wonderful.  Not in small part because of his refusal to respond as if one's beliefs are independent of the use of one's body.  I will not try to summarize FMs response because I'm quite sure I can not do it justice.  Suffice it to say that FM would like us all to have an open mind to all information.  And if such new information was sufficient to change our opinion on any subject he would hope we could change our opinion without undue hesitation.

After reading this, I started to think about my impressions of the RBC.  Honestly, they do seem a bit arrogent.  They seem to believe that if they are not like the foolish other believers then they are  the holders of the trueth.  But if you are not a fool you are not necessarily a genius.

I am amused by those who have not examined the beliefs that govern their activities.  And I'm irritated by those who have beliefs that are not aligned with well established scientific thought.  But does having reason based beliefs promote ones openness to new information?

It does not seem so.

Remember a couple years ago when the high priests of the RBC decided that Pluto was not a planet anymore?  It made front page news and it was in the news for two weeks afterwards.  So many people were shocked and upset.  Here, a basic scientific fact that all members of the RBC learned in grade school was revised.  Endless article were written documenting the terribly hard process the RBC went through giving up this belief.

So how real are the beliefs of the RBC?  This RBC includes astrometers who can't find half the matter in the universe.  These are the people who say the universe is actually expanding at an accelerating rate.  And the astronomers are not the only card carrying members of the RBC.  There are the physicists also.  What is "real" to physicists   Atoms?  Do you have any idea of the vast empty space between atoms?  Further, atoms are made up of sub atomic particles.  And the empty space between these sub atomic particles is also huge.  And how real are these "particles"?  Even the word "particle" is misleading because it infers something substantial.  But these particles flash in and out of existence in a tiny fraction of a second.  They are just a momentary manifestation in an endless of web of energetic potentiality.  That's it.

So what is real?  Nothing.  Nothing is real.  Sorry but that is the way it actually is.

You don't have to be a scientist to come to this realization.  Sit quietly and observe reality without trying to change or hold onto anything.  Notice anything that does not change?  Anything substantial that you can hold onto?  Notice anything at all that is real?

So on what basis does the RBC claim any authority?  Well not much.  They may have better beliefs but that does not make them right.

I no longer admire the RBC as much.  It's easy to parrot the lessons that the RBC dictate, but it is much more challenging to be open to new information, to critically evaluate it, and change quickly without undue hesitation or embarrassing display.

This openness and ability to change our habits is a special and cultivatable skill.  To develop it I think we first need to acknowledge that our fixed beliefs are habit of thought and body.  They are, actually, the same thing.

To become fixed in a habit of body/mind in a world that is utterly beyond our comprehension is to invite error and disaster.    If you know of anything that helps undermine the roots of habit besides the AT and Zen, please let me know.  Thank you very much.