Honestly, writing this post feels like confidently exploring a dark room with an ambitious vision of what that room looks like but here goes.
The following is quoted from Light from the Darkness: the paintings of Peter Birkhäuser (an artist I deeply admire) that I think rings true even today and to me personally.
"He personifies the tragic inner split of modern man, who through an over-reliance on rationality has lost his spiritual and inner meaning. We can no longer overcome this split, but we can become conscious of it. Then the creative spirit of the unconscious could be reintegrated with our consciousness."
To me, one form of over-reliance on rationality is being too quick to
dismiss what doesn't fit our established framework as our towers of
understanding through science, engineering, etc. get taller and
taller. We've continued to construct more sophisticated technology and
refine our ways to observe/model the world, and this can really
nurture a sense of understanding of objective reality. Yet, the very
fabric of our perception is woven with subjectivity. Consider the
microscope—an extension of our eyes, translating the unseen into the
visible. Still, its foundation remains in our subjective reality. I
just think that empiricism is what drives progress and NOT
rationalism.
Also, it seems like this understanding of objective reality is
considered to be directly connected with the universality of our
creations. As it seems straightforward enough to think that to launch
rockets or build phones that are connected wirelessly, we would need
an amazing understanding of objective reality. We then may feel that
our latest inventions exibihit a deeper sophistication or do something
new that may seem more "universal" (with the tools for creation
improving every single day), but I think this feeling is partly
misguided and it may just be the case that we are going deeper into
the parts we have collectively considered important as a civilization.
In essence, our progress in manufacturing and engineering continually
enhances our ability to construct more efficient solutions within the
realm of the physics we operate in. For example, the majority of
computer mice are ergonomically shaped to fit comfortably in the right
hand. This bias towards right-handed users is evident in the physical
design of the mouse itself. The curvature, button placement, and even
the scroll wheel's positioning are optimized for right-handed
individuals. An extra-terrestrial observer could possibly deduce this
design bias by inspecting the physical form and be able to form
conclusions about the domain of physics we operate in. Our description
of the universe is probably affected by the size we are (a metre-ish)
and our brain processing speeds being what they are and the speed of
light relative to our experience among many other things in ways we
may not yet even be aware of.
So then what would be so universal that we would share with
extra-terrestrial life? Maybe mathematics is the most universal thing
because it's often used for making objective statements and expressing
fundamental principles? I suspect it won't be because there just might
be very few universal facts, and the mathematics we develop is in a
sense existent to understand our reality through our constrained
perception.
Euclid's work in geometry, particularly in his most famous work
"Elements," consisting of 13 books that cover topics such as plane
geometry, number theory, and the geometry of solids, did not rely on
the concept of zero or incorporate it into his mathematical framework.
So we have that, zero as a mathematical concept and a numerical digit
was invented and developed significantly after Euclid's time (around
900 to 1,200 years later!) The idea of zero was invented and consider
that it may not be that universal, but now that we know it, we can't
let go of the idea because of how useful it is.
What about art, would non-human life potentially appreciate our art
and music? I truly love this description of it that I came across
"Art is how we decorate space, and music is how we decorate time" - Jean-Michel Basquiat
The lack of universality in art may be more apparent just because of how much it's tied into our experience of color, forms, emotions, etc. And we are still to assume space and time are fundamental and not just a simplification our brains create to have some sort of coherence that makes life possible. Though, I think this captures very well the universality of our creations, in that it captures many aspects of the human experience.
Conclusion
Reflecting on my own life, I realize that an overemphasis on being
"right" has often overshadowed my pursuit of novelty and meaningful
aspirations. It's like this over-reliance often leads to
prioritizing short-term gains in my pursuits, because they seem to
be more likely to resolve faster and feel like "you're doing the
right thing" sooner.
In the past, the project for the construction of a church was a 100
year project—a project that the people planning it expected their
children's children's children's children's children to finish.
Paradoxically, despite our remarkable advancements in technology and
science, you would think the 100 year projects that people would
embark upon today to be even greater (larger monuments and more
impressive artifacts), but it doesn't look like in today's world
there's even many people embarking on 100 year projects? Seems like
this over-reliance on rationalization can distance us from the
profound meaning that even our simplest actions can hold, both
personally and collectively.
It's essential to balance the pursuit of objective understanding
with a recognition of the subjectivity inherent in our human
existence. By doing so, we may rediscover the richness of our inner
worlds and the universality of our creative expressions, all while
embarking on meaningful, long-lasting pursuits that add to our
shared human tapestry.