Until we do the necessary work we won't know to what degree language orders and ordains perception; to how much we owe our Being-humanness to language itself; to what limits language confronts us with, and to what limits language takes us beyond. In the same vein, Maturana and Varela concur that we may not even be considered as human beings without language. "Every reflection, including the one on human knowledge, invariably takes place in language, which is our distinctive way of being human and being actively human. For this reason language is... our starting point, our cognitive instrument, and our sticking point." It is langauge then, at least according to Maturana and Varela. Furthermore, Maturana and Varela state, most unequivocally, that "We human beings are only human beings in langauge. Because we have language there is no limit to what we can describe, imagine, and relate. It thus permeates our whole ontogeny as individuals: from walking to attitudes to politics."

Of course! Language is "how" we communicate, and it may be, more than we yet realize, "why" we communicate. It is just this "languaging" that is most fundamental, and not the absolutist stance that would dictate what languague or languaging is most descriptive of Reality --- as some are wont to do. It is languaging, in both its abstract and particular aspects, that constitutes the Being-human, the self-aware Bodies, the reflective and expressive communicators. We are steeped in langauge, so much so that we are "constituted in langauge in a continuous becoming that we bring forth with others."

The irony of languaging is that it is not conclusive --- in an Utlimate Sense, at least. In other words, language cannot conclude, absolutely so, as much as it can service a view --- and a partial one at that. Each distinct language offers us a potent description of potential and possibility; allusions of meaning and significance. We need not necessarily mistake our descriptive languaging for Reality either, any more than we would mistake a finger pointing at the moon for the moon in and of itself.

Language services a view by distinctly conveying ones expressiveness in relation to an Other. Language, as we understand it now, cannot service absolutes. And never could, for that matter! Every attempt to language absolutes has failed miserably. Language can convey, and does quite sufficiently. In this sense, languaged definitions can be noted as being transparent, lasting only as long as the communication which langauging is meant to serve. Whenever we try to overtly code a specific set of "absolutes" in language, then we will find over time that our languaged "aboslutes" cannot hold... the burden of Time and Impermanence takes its toll on even the most strict langaugings.

Language can express and relate... which signifies partial views and relativity, art and creative application, suggestions and allusions. Absolutes call for definition, for absolute conclusiveness. Language is unable to provide us that, as language was not intended to define, but to allude and express, relate and convey by servicing a view through languaged sharing; or "a conntinuous becoming that we bring forth with others."

 

91

The only possibility for coexistence is to opt for a broader perspective, a domain of existence in which both parties fit in the bringing forth of a common world. A conflict is always a mutual negation. It can never be solved in the domain where it takes place if the disputants are "certain".

---Humberto Maturana & Francisco Varela

We have seen our share of "certainty" over the past few millennia. Even now a certain sort of "certainty" presents huge obstacles for us. It seems there is always one new religion of certainty or another that threatens the world with a heretofore-unseen totalitarianism; with a new form of "mutual negation". The conflicts of our age, from the battles in the Mid-East to those between competition and cooperation are all based upon partial certainties. We have and still do long for some certainty, and yet it appears that certainty is actually one of, if not the greatest threat to our continued coexistence.

Deep within the human psyche we want to "know" that we are right, that we have found The Answer. From the particle physicist's search for the Unified Theory of Everything to the downcast and forlorn lover who wants to "know" the real reason that they have been left for another --- we want the certain truth. Yet, the certain truth is too darn slippery! It ever remains one step ahead of our pursuits; which means we can do nothing but pursue it further if we want that certain truth --- ever the dangling carrot of certainty.

But tell all of this to the new generation of searchers after certainty and they will look at you like you have lost your mind. "You just didn't look in the right places, is all". "You gave up too soon." "You didn't try hard enough... weren't smart enough... strong enough... earnest enough." We've heard it all before from every generation that sought out certainty in their age, in their time, with their turn on the stage. We even said it ourselves when we were searching for certainty. And it wasn't long, in some cases, before we found out that the only certainty is that nothing is certain since Einstein, and that just about anything is possible. The world continues to surprise!

The only thing that doesn't change is change itself. That and the fact that every generation that comes along will imagine that they can do what we have never been able to; which is to find, discover, and convince each other of one or another Absolute Certainty. We come armed with our partial truth, and some selective evidence. Even this text being subject to a computer crash, or a fire after printing. Where did that "written down in code truth" go to? Up in smoke? Down in silicon? Just words. More languaged distinctions to occupy time; to illumine experience; to express sentiments; to, in the words of Maturana and Varela, "find ourselves in this co-ontogenic coupling, not as preexisting reference nor in reference to an origin, but as an ongoing transformation in the becoming of the linguistic world that we build with other human beings."

What might need to become now in our linguistic world? Global commerce? One world orders? Universal pluralism? What might the next generation find and discover with Absolute Certainty, and how would that discovery have to be shared? What sort of 'co-ontogenic coupling through the linguistic domains are we now starting to see? Is English fast becoming the language of global discourse through the Internet, the World Wide Web? Nelson W. Aldrich, editor of Civilization magazine, writes in a recent issue, that English is "the first truly global lingua franca, the language of science and business, political and financial power, the Internet and popular culture --- the language, in short, of prosperity..."

One Market. One World. One peoples. One tongue. One language.

All across the board we are seeing this "new ideology" of globalism. It infiltrates all avenues of human endeavour; from science to religion, business to politics. The economic factors driving the convergence of capital on a global scale are driving other convergences... of culture, of religion, of conflict. And the nature of this convergence is that we have to be able to dialogue in a shared tongue. For better or worse, that lingua franca is turning out to be English. And it will be up to the non-English speaking cultures to hold their own during this globalization process. A certain sort of cultural stubbornness will behoove those members of cultures that feel threatened by the globalization process. Like the ancestral slaves who sang their own songs under cover of darkness; stubbornly holding onto the remnants of their culture; not forgetting who they were as a peoples unto themselves; not accepting the colonial defintions that would strip a peoples culture from them for a new name-tag and a number.

 

92

First off, everyone does not have the same experience. We cannot say that we all share, in an exacting sense, the same experience of Being-human, of Being. Period. In one sense, there may be very little distinctions between persons --- such as our genetic heritage. Yet, in the same breath we can also speak mindfully of the acknowledged differences that we each are characterized by. For, without these differences we could not tell one thing apart from another, one person from any other person. We can certainly agree on nothing if we cannot agree that, while there are may be primary similarities by Being-human, there are also vast distinctions and differences that we cannot just readily dismiss --- in an off-handed manner. There are both similarities and differences. Both.

For instance, if we have not shared in the experience of what we are attemtping to communicate, then are communication has no basis. For verification and confirmation purposes there needs to be a similar sharing of the expereince or consideration in question. Those who are convinced of having been abducted by aliens cannot convince someone of the absolute certainty of their abduction experience unless that person has also had a similar experience. Likewise, mystics cannot convince someone of the Unity of Consciousness if that person has not experienced a glimmer of that fact for him or herself. And scientists cannot convince each other of the absolute certainty of their experimental results unless others have verified and experienced those same experimental results for themselves. It is the whole purpose of those "exemplary injunctions" that we talked about earleir. All of our communication rests on the foundations of having shared in something similar, common, global. And, in the same breath, all of our communication falls apart when we have not shared in that which we are communicating about. If I have nothing to refer to --- no experiential basis upon which to refer --- then I cannot even begin to comprehend what you are communicating to me. I may be able to imagine, to, perhaps, empathize, but I cannot know in a direct manner. In short, I cannnot relate. And that there is the difficulty of our attempts at pinning down with certainty, as well as codifying, absolutes: we do not all have cognitive access to the same referents.

In any languaged terminilogy there is a chain of symbols. These signifying chains are meant to 'refer' to something in an actual sense --- even if it is to an imagined actuality. In whatever languaged terms that we are communicating through, we are, in essence, attempting to communicate something actual: a real feeling... a real thought... a real sense of imperative... a real-ness... an actualness. The realness of what we are attmpting to convey must be put in terms that those whom we are communicating with can understand. There is, necessarily, a shared comprehension of the symbol-set or system that we are using as our means of communication. Without this shared comprehension, no amount of certainty on behalf of one of the parties is ever going to convince the other party. In other words, no amount of certainty or conviction on behalf of our preferred set of "absolutes" is going to convince another of the "truth" of those absolutes if they have no experiential point of reference. We can talk, jump, shout, pose --- do all we want to. The fact of the matter is that there needs to be both a shared experiential basis and a shared comprehension of the languaged terminology that we are using to communicate with and through. If either of these components is missing then no amount of other kinds of efforts will matter in the least. The mutual penetrating components of language comprehension, and a shared experiential basis, are fundamental in all communal practices. If we do not understand each others, cannot comprehend each others use of language, then, effectively speaking, we cannot connect in a communicative manner. And, if we do not relate, have no experiential basis which we can refer to, then, effectively speaking, we cannot connect. Both of these elements of all languaged practices --- language comprehension and shared experiential referents --- must be present, or else we will be unable to communicate except on the most superficial of levels.

Can we ever have the exact same experience? Maybe not. But we can have the same "types" of experience.

We can, and will still, be bound to interpret experiences in our own way --- based upon those kinds of conditioning that we have been subject to in whatever culture we have been immersed in? But even though we will still intepret similar types of experiences differently, we will also share in the commonality of those types of experiences. In other words, though the experience may not be exactly, to the letter, just like ours, this in no way obscures or prevents us from realizing that there were and are certain similarities that we share in the awareness of. In the sense of AA (Alcoholics Anonymous), we may all be recovering addicts, but we are our own kind of recovering addict. We face a similar challenge in our recovery, but we do so in a unique way. It is not an all or nothing kind of life: we are not all alike or all different in a totalizing sense. We are somewhat alike and somewhat different, with the realization of this able to potentially negate some of the heat we have been feeleing over the millennia from one after another Absolutizing Force or Ideology, that seeks to make all peoples live according to one standard.

So, is Absolute Certainty a fallacy then? Something that we cannot even hope to experience as newly globalized peoples? Besides, do we still want and desire Absolute Certainty with the same kind of fervor we have in the past? In other words, taking into account what we now know, do we still want to empower Absolute Standards in every field of human endeavour or not?

Science, my dear. Do you still long for the Absolute Theory of Everything? And you, Religion. Do you still desire the Absolute with such fire and passion that you would be blind once again to what is ever left behind by you and your Absolutes?

In music, we love the different, the many flavours. In art, we love the distinct colors and textures, the many hues and shades. In literatures, difference. In drama, difference. In comedy, difference. So, tell us why dear Science, tell us why dear Religion, tell us why you have so long sought for the Absolute, and having believed you found it on occasion set about trying to convert the whole world by the sword and the stake? Tell us why? Why such a concern for Absolute Certainty? The orphans that your swords and stakes have left behind want to know. Tell us why? What are you both so afraid of that you would kill in the name of Your Certainty? What is so fearful about peasants attuned to the seasons? Must all follow your calendar, your Absolutes of Days and Years? What is so fearful my dear fellows? Why such tenacity in regard to the Absolute? Have ye both become addicted? Do we need to establish a new kind of AA, an Absolutists Anonymous? A place where those addicted to "absolute certainty" can go to recover? Just for you my dear Religion and Science... Just for Absolutists. A simple twelve steps.

 

93

The only way that we could ever experience absolute certainty --- all six billion plus of us --- would be if there were to be some sort of Transcendent Multi-Lingual Order that appeared to us all at once. From beyond the realm of our conditioned psyche, speaking to us in our many tongues, yet with One Meaning.

In other words, a globally unified mystical experience of all peoples is the only hope of our ever realizing absolute certainty. An absolute certainty, which we could all agree on, beyond a shadow of a doubt. We would have to receive it in terms that we could each comprehend. We would have to share in the same experience: A singular event, no room for error. Thus, only such a globally unified mystical experience for all peoples could ever allow us to realize, en masse, the long sought after absolute certainty which no one could question.

Yet even this is not certain. Whyfore?

Because we could still "interpret" the event through our particular lens. As soon as we started to communicate about what we had each experienced we would be right back where we started! (This is interesting!) We would be back to languaging the experience in unique ways. Even though we had shared the experience, beyond a shadow of a doubt, it could still mean different things to different people depending upon where we are at in our lives. The Transcendent Experience did not eradicate our conditions, but enlightened them. In other words, the proposed Transcendent Experience would still be interpreted back into the context of our lives. Again, the Transcendent Experience does not eradicate our conditions and the context of our times but rather illuminates those conditons and that context. As Ken Wilber put it a while back, we still have to interpret the experience, the "genuine spiritual intuition" into the context of our lives. We translate the Transcendent Experience so that illumines our conditions. It would matter very little if we all shared in a similar Transcendental Experience --- any more than it matters that we all share in the experience of breathing, and of thirst, and of water. These are all shared common experiences that we already comprehend and understand in a communal and global manner. Already we must orient ourselves in relation to these shared necessities. But just look at all of the difference that still exist! Even though we share in breathing there are many ways to breathe. How could it, and why would it be any different in relation to a Globally Unified Transcendetal Experience, simultaneous for all peoples? I am saying it wouldn't. I am saying we would interpret the Transcendent Revelation back into the context of our lives, with all of the difference and idiosyncracy that entails.

So, we can see that how, even though we may have an experience that we all share in common --- like Sunshine --- that our intepretations about what that Shining Sun means will still send us all scattering about the Tower of Babel like we reportedly did so many thousands of years ago. A common, shared, communal referent can still have many meanings; for each person, for each context, for each view, from each perspective a tiotally revelatory meaning is realized. Thus, in this sense, absolute certainty is seen to be a fatal presumption on our part. It was, is, and will continue to be so as well. Therefore, it is, as I propose, time for us to surrender the notion all together and begin to accept the relativity, uncertainty, and incompleteness that people like Albert Einstein, Neils Bohr, and Kurt Godel have been telling us are the only sure things (which is kind of like the Buddhists with their notion of Impermanence; that the only permanent thing in life is that nothing is permanent.)

Oh, I can hear the uproar now!

"Nothing permanent! Nothing certain! Who the %^% do you think you are! That's blasphemy you heretic!"

Yes it is. And yes I am.

What science has confirmed --- with some amount of certainy! --- is that the subject is inextricably bound up with the object during any act of measurement (and not and never left out of the equation). As soon as one decides "how" one is going to proceed, experimentally, then the subject is already, in a sense, determining "how" that object shall appear. At the very moment when the subject determines "how" to go about measuring the object or process in question, is also the very moment when the subject has entered into the experiment, thereby subjectivizing the results (which as we have seen is exactly what the objectivists don't want to have happen... or want to admit happens!).

It certainly may be possible to be relatively more objective --- a sort of sliding scale of subjectivity to objectivity, like gradations of light to dark. What is illusive though, at this point in time (and with all of the evidential data that is available on all fronts), is that absolute objectivity is not at all possible given our current state and condition. Furthermore, if this absolute objectivity were available to someone, or to a group, how would that absolute objectivity ever be communicated if not through subjects with all of their biases and conditioning, prejudices and preferences? So, the trick for us is not always in access, but in communicating --- in translation, in reciprocity, in exchange and interfaces; in short, interepretation.

We can firmly believe that we have encountered and been in informed as to an absolute view, yet conveying that absolute view to others still runs us smack dab into all of the difficulties of communication and intersubjective exchange that we have always encountered. The complicated and complexified nature of intersubjective relations, in Life, in general, do not depart just because of a Transcendent Experience, an Objective Certitude, or an Absolute Certainty. In fact, we could say that a certain amount or degree of objectivity only serves to illuminate how very treacherous and complex intersubjective communications can be. As was stated earlier: The Transcendent Experience does not negate conditions, but rather illuminates them for what they are: the very context of our life.

Let's say, for instance, that we have a moderator or mediator that can assist us in our difficulties in relating with another. We are going to be communicating what is, for us, an absolute certainty. We are convinced. There is no doubt. This is the biggie! The Real Deal! You'll see! Now, the moderator's job is to do away with some of the relative conditions or considerations that are blocking acceptance on the part of one party or the other, i.e., usually the one who just doesn't get it yet! In other words, there is some relative consideration that the one or the other party is beholden to; that they don't want to part with for their own relatively good reasons, (but they just may have to go in the name of our Absolute, won't they?).

Which brings us to a crucial consideration: If there is a clash between an absolute certainty, as illumined by another, and we are, for instance, that one who is holding to a purely relative and idiosyncratic position that conflicts with the absolute certainty, then we will have a choice to make, won't we? Our relative position; or their absolute certainty. Which is it? What's it going to be?

In most mediation proceedings there are compromises that have to be made --- on behalf of all parties involved. Whether we are talking divorce, inter-tribal warfare, or a conflict between labor and management: the fact of the matter is that we cannot have our cake and eat it too. We have to share the cake, and the eating of that cake as well. Compromise is the name of the Reality game.

Hence, we can more clearly see that the conflicts that arise in our lives are usually conflicts based upon interpretation and the relative nature of view. We "see" things differently. We interpret the meaning of the conditions and circumstances of our lives differently. We have differing agendas. We have different desires and different goals, yet exist on the same field. And when we want our way to be the only way then we invite conflict into our lives. We are, in essence, asking everyone else to accept our view as the "real" one, the "true" one, the "right" one. But is it? Is one view all right, and another all wrong? Or are views partial? Do all views have certain blindspots, blindspots that the viewer is blind to, unaware of? It certainly seems so. It certainly seems to be that not all views can be reduced to one; meaning, that not every view can be included in one particular view. For instance, I cannot see what you now see. Yes, I have read these words, written these words... but I am not seeing them as you are, interpreting them as you are, realizing them in the way that you are. Your view is not included in mine... not in an overt form anyways. Hence, a sort of sacredness persists, as the inviolate nature of each perceiver. Each subject that can say or demonstrate that "Yes, I am", is gifting the Kosmos with a pleasured perception that no other being can offer. Indeed, a sort of sacredness doth persist.

 

94

In Buddhist circles, the understanding of and about View is of fundamental importance. All other considerations and practices are meant to rest on the foundation of the View --- which is called the "Base", or "Ground", in other interpretations. How we see the world --- our "view" --- must be established in order for our Path to be authentic, and in order for our Fruit to be realized. In this way, we can see, in Buddhism as well, how all is meant to flow forth from that perceptual and interpretive "base" that is the View. For both our Path and our Fruit necessarily follow our View, like a cart follows the horse pulling it.

View is considered to be the fundamental basis, then, of both the Path and the Fruit (which are the other two primary elements of most all Buddhist practice). Sogyal Rinpoche, a Tibetan Buddhist author, calls these three key elements View, Meditation, and Action, which coincide with base, path, and fruit. He writes that "The practical training... is traditionally, and most simply, desribed in terms of View, Meditation, and Action. To see directly... the Ground of our being, is the View; the way of stabilizing that View and making it an unbroken experience is Meditation; and integrating the View into our entire reality, and life, is what is meant by Action."

Here, the terminology is not as important, or as crucial, as the understanding is. It is not necessary that we grasp the intricacies of Buddhist philosophy in order to understand the supreme importance of View with respect to all that we therefore say and do. For instance, if we are simply misinformed, if our View is constituted of erroneous information, or is based on foul perception, then the Path we will walk will stem from that misinformed View (which will also lead us to Fruit or Action that carries some negative consequences, i.e., most likely being unnecessary suffering). I am sure we have all experienced this at one time or another. We form a view of a situation upon erroneous, insufficient, or partial data, with the consequences to boot!

In a manner of speaking, this is all just another way of saying that the "ends are inherent in the means". How we are seeing in the moment determines, in part, what we are seeing in the moment. With how we respond to what we are seeing being dependent upon "how" we initially interpreted "what" we saw. The consequences do follow from this; as the ends that we realize are inherent in the means that we employ. Herein, Base, Path, and Fruition are seamless, forming a whole.

The View = the Base or the Ground. It is where we begin; the foundation of our perceptions; the fundamental ground from which we perceptually and interpretively realize the world. Sogyal Rinpoche says that, in the Tibetan Buddhist sense, the View "is nothing less than seeing the actual state of things as they are..."

Meditation = the Path. The Path depends upon the Ground. We can have Ground with no Path; but we must have the Ground to have a Path. We must have aView to have a Path. Therefore, our Path rests on the fundamental nature of the Ground we estbalish; just as our perceptual path rests on the fundamental nature of the ground of our view.

Action = the Fruition or the Fruit that is realized from Path and Ground, Meditation and View. What comes from the fundamental ground of our View? Where does the Path lead us? Both to Fruition. Truth and consequences. The consequences of our View that informed our Path are realized in the world as the Fruit of Path informed by View.

In a metaphorical and analogical sense, we could even state that the Base, or View, forms the roots of our Tree of Knowledge, while the Path becomes its trunk and branches, as the Fruition is the actual fruit of our Tree of Knowledge --- be it what kind it actually is. The Tree of Knowledge is a seamless whole, where Base, Path, and Fruit are realized in an actual sense. Each aspect srves to infomr the other. Perhaps, if we do not like the fruit that we manifested from our Tree of Knowledge the last time around, we will then alter our View --- refine it, purify it, cleanse it. This, then, results in a different Path, a new road taken; which will culminate in a sepcific Fruition, a certain kind of Fruit that can only be realized through that Base and that Path. The Truth causes and effects. If you want to realize this then do this first. Exemplary injunctions: View, Meditation, Action; Base, Path, Fruit.

It is a quite certain fact that we have all realized the fruition of a certain road taken. We have had a view --- a dream or a vision or an idea or a notion. We take this view and carry it with us as we begin to walk the path that we feel will lead us to the supreme realization of that view: the fruit. It can be money or an education. It can be romance or vengeance. It can be the vows of the Bodhisattva; taken to liberate all of the beings in all worlds, all times, all places. There are many views that do capture our fancy, our imagination --- even our fears attract a view, albeit a view of what we fear. All of the views resolve into a path, a way, a road; a style and a manner of being. And each of those styles and manners of being --- those roads, those paths --- lead to fruition, culminate in a specific fruit.

If we were a gardener and wanted to have some pears we would plant the seed of a pear tree. Nurture it, tend to it, care for it. Over time we would, by the Grace of God and the Seasons, have ourselves some pears. And, in many respects, there is not that much difference when it comes to us and our relationships with the world. We are each nurturing a tree, a tree that was planted, a tree that will bear fruit. We are each maintaining a View, walking a Path, then realizing the Fruition of the View which led to that Path. The Truth both causes and effects. If we choose to interpret the "raw data "of the world in this way, then our path will most likely lead us here, to this moment of fruition. The Truth both causes and effects. And somewhere along the way we each chose to see what this kind of Fruit would taste like; we took up a View --- our's or someone else's, no different --- walked a Path that lead to the Fruition of this moment. So, here we are. A certain sort of Fruition has come about. A certain sort of realization has dawned. Our view, our interpretation, has lead us to certain conclusions; those conclusions have illumined a path that we have walked for good or ill. The Truth causes and effects. If you want to know what this is like then first do this. Everyone takes up injunctions. Everyone.

 

95

Varela and Maturana state that "every act of knowing brings forth a world". Our doing, our Path, is based upon what we know, our View--the Ground that establishes our Path. Our View, then, is based upon "how we see"; as our perception is, in many ways, structural. In other words, we, as Being-humans, are structured in a certain way. There are certain structural considerations that we must take into account when we are considering this so-called "quest for the absolute". For if humans are structured in a certain manner and other beings are structurally configured differently, then different forms of knowing will certainly result from these structural differences. For instance, a bottle-nosed dolphin is structured in a distinctly different manner than we are as Being-humans. Therefore, the perceptions of the bottle-nosed dolphin will give rise to a distinct form of knowing; which, in a way, calls into question our so-called "absolute certainties". For how can we call something absolute if it does not apply to all beings? It certainly may appear to be an absolute for humans. But I have some news; "The worlds are not solely populated by and for humans." And the whole notion of 'absolutes' is that they apply universally. Not universally in a human sense, but universally in an absolute sense.

Lakoff and Johnson seem to concur, when they point, in relation to Kant and the idea of a transcendent reason that exists apart from the body, that "There exists no Kantian radically autonomous person, with absolute freedom and a transcendent reason that correctly dictates what is and isn't moral. Reason, arising from the body, doesn't transcend the body. What universal aspects of reason there are arise from the commonalities of our bodies and brains and the environments we inhabit." In other words, there are certain structural similarities by Being-human that account for what appear to be those "universal apsects of reason". With the least of these being the Body!

We have already discussed the notions of difference in relation to individual perception, and how these are, in large part, determined by the differences between our bodies (height, weight, sensory capability, etc.). Now, we come to find that the positing of a transcendent order --- like Plato and Kant do, to name just a couple --- such a positing, in order to account for the commonalities between persons and peoples, is like taking the long road home. In other words, it is not necessary to posit a transcendent order to account for the cross-cultural similarities and non-continental commonalities which persons and peoples do share. It is only necessary to refer to the corporeal, i.e., the Body. The structural similarities of the Being-human, of the Body of Humanity, account for the cross-cultural similarities --- not to mention all of the elemental and fundamental similarities that we share in out of necessity, such as water, earth, air, fire, breath, babies, and death. In short, the great transcendent leap of faith is not necessary. It can even serve to muddle the issue, precisely because there is no conclusive evidentiary data. Of course, we do have the "exemplary injunctions" of the contemplative traditions that might serve to provide some sort of transcendental evidence. But, as we shall see, even the Buddha questioned the efficacy of speculating on a transcendent order or reality. He, as I am as well, was more concerned with what was here, conclusively speaking. Therefore, the Body, in a structural sense, accounts for both the similarities and the differences that we all share in. We each have/are a Body, and these diverse Bodies are structurally similar. We each exist on Earth, and this is yet another structural similarity. Sharing these structural similarities can more than account for any and all commonalities that we share in --- morally or otherwise. It is not necessary for us to posit a transcendent order to do so (unless we are so inclined).

It is often recognized that many of the differences that are exhibited by Being-human are due to differences in structure or habitat, and that if we share any commonality then it must be due to a sort of Transcendent Otherness, that alone can account for our similarities across the bounds of cultural space-time. As we are seeing here, though --- and as I am sure we can quite basicaly deduce --- is that the very structural basis for Being-human assures us of as much similarity as difference (in fact, much more simlarity than difference). Lakoff and Johnson: "What universal aspects of reason there are arise from the commonalities of our bodies and brains and the environments and habitats." We can state the same for morality and certain predispositions that we all may more or less demonstrate merely by Being-human. Our risk of focusing on difference --- in order to be somebody --- is that we omit from our awareness all of that which we share with our kin just by Being-human, just by Being. Period. The distinctions cloud the sky of a blue sharedness that is based on the structure of what is the Being-human: bi-pedal, opposable thumbs, neo-cortex, capacity for reflection and conceptualization, ability to create from the given, capacity to re-present Nature to ItSelf in new forms. These are just some of the major structural similarities that we all share, simply by Being-human, irrespective of differences and distinctions.