Introduction

Purpose and Progress
   
           The main hypothesis of this work is that progress is possible.  In spite of the pandemic pessimism that treats progress as a child’s notion this work is a defense of the value of progress as an idea as well as a plea for the recognition of the importance of this pursuit or purpose.  What follows is an attempt to synthesize purpose and progress into one idea.  This science of living is a presentation of love made in service to the belief that progress is not only possible but also necessary.  
           As I know the frustration of enduring vague and over-ambitious introductions to works that inevitably fail to deliver I have tried, here in this introduction, to simply state the nature of discussion in a clear and straightforward way.  The preliminary ideas and contexts presented give an accurate picture of the work’s focus as well as a reasonable description of the conclusions to be drawn.   I hope this saves some time for those that might be better served searching elsewhere for knowledge but more importantly I wish not to cripple my work with the kind of insecurity that such self-promotion evidences.  I seek no reward from this work other than the joy of serving my principles.  So, the claims you will find in this introduction will be fulfilled in the body of the work.  
           What follows is a description of principles that, when exercised, bring about progress in our personal lives and communities, thus proving the hypothesis.  Each description is an invitation to test the ideas shared.  Willingness to experiment with one’s life is central to the paradigm that drives this work.  For that reason it is called a science for the principles require risk taking and the use of intuition.  It will be argued that our survival as a species is threatened.  The relationship to that threat is the context within which these experiments will take place thus life itself is the result we are searching for in the practice of this science.  Not only survival but also the thriving that all life desires will be the measure of any successful application this science of living might hope for.  
           This type of work is common to every age.  That is proof of both the necessity for this kind of work as well as the need for its periodic modernization.  Many books have been written with the same purpose and the same message.  What I argue within is that language is forever changing and these ideas, being essential to our survival, need updating from time to time.  They are subtle principles that have enabled us as a species to participate in the miraculous progressive defiance of nature.  New language gives these tired ideas new strength, new life!  This work does not in any way seek to undermine past efforts.  It is not a criticism.  Rather, it is meant to carry on a tradition in a way that is celebratory.  
           I declared my major hypothesis so that all investigation and procedure that followed could be seen in the light of the initial intuition from which it was born.  The maintenance of one’s primary objective is essential to the construction of any successful argument so my disclosure is a challenge set against myself for the benefit of the reader and serves as an example of later principles.  Also, I wish to clarify that my hypothesis is stated in direct opposition to the prevailing viewpoint that sees the human condition as an unchanging psychological state devoid of duality, dilemma, morality or God.  This work is, quite clearly and unapologetically, an agenda that calls for action.  I wish to be forthright about that in order to save readers from the disappointment some feel when they discover that a work is argumentative.  I have tried however to be compelling in the presentation of the work.  Ideas and themes are laid out with an awareness at least of their poetic beauty.  I cannot compensate totally for the limitations of every reader but I have tried to allow room for personal projection and reflection.  It remains however, that the bias of the work is innate to the process of science.  Personally, I have found wrestling with a clear opinion from time to time to be a healthy exercise.  
           There is an over-arching theme to be found here that is argumentative, that seeks to convince you of the necessity of change.  However, if I make any promises about the quality it is that every effort has been made to present clearly stated opinions as to the nature of reality that can be utilized in one’s meditations.
 
Preliminary Notions
   
           The proposition that progress is possible implies that regression is also possible.  Further implications include stagnation and perfection.  All the relative qualities that might be ascribed to the process of growth exist only in the mind of one daring to yearn for greater understanding.  This desire is the foundation of a science that has as its aim the augmentation and satisfaction of that faculty known as reason.  This is then directed toward the fulfillment of the universal human craving for happiness within existence.  Because science has this relationship to desire, to the understanding and to joyful existence the science of living seeks to synthesize the notion of relative value with the notion of truth.  It is a pragmatic approach to idealistic living.  This work argues that inner progress and outer/social progress are mutually dependant variables.  This is not a new idea but the bond that holds these two notions together has been weakened.  I seek here to strengthen that bond with sound reasoning.  The current changes that obscure these universal principles shall be addressed in this work but first we will continue with some additional preliminary notions that will help to clarify my relationship with the understanding.  
           I will not move forward without first affirming the following premise, necessary to the context, that; the striving of life is synonymous with living itself.  Also, that living is a scientific process whether it is conscious or not.  All of our lives are experiments driven by hypotheses, calculated risk, a controlled longing.  The science of living, in its redundancy, seeks to bring this reality to the forefront of our consciousness, in order to enrich the possibility of informed experimentation.
            In my life I have strived mostly for progress, both personal and social, and I present this work to you as the results of my study.  You will find, certainly, a description of the problem, as is necessary to any study, to which the hypothesis corresponds but I will not, as many do, rest within the cathartic fellowship of the crisis.  I will move on with possible solutions to these problems and arguments that work to satisfy the reason, that faculty of ours that can sometimes guard against change.
            I am aware that making qualitative measurements of one’s society and its members remains a treacherous vocation, but the results of my study indicate the necessity of such work.  I have, for caution’s sake, subverted the scientific process in this work in order to provide a recognizable and comfortable structure for those overwhelmed by the nature of this task.  The reputability of science will, I hope, provide a counter-balance to the widely misunderstood activity of social change and criticism.
 
Secondary Hypotheses
   
           No statement can be made without implication; this is a linguistic reality that I wish to address before moving on to the next section of our introduction.  As I have chosen the possibility of progress as my primary hypothesis it begs the obvious question.  Do I believe that there is moral significance to this progress?  The answer to this is implied but I wanted to take a moment to make explicit my belief in this secondary hypothesis.  Not only is progress possible but also it is necessary, morally necessary, spiritually necessary and environmentally necessary for the survival of both individual souls and humanity.  
           I do not believe this bias works to undermine the accuracy of this science.  In fact, its expression serves as a metaphor for the synthesis of relative value to truth.  These seemingly simple, somewhat archaic and archetypal deductions will be used as givens in the creation of a work that aims at change.  The argument and logical structure, built on this foundation, is aimed at the reason, that faculty that guards against such value judgments.  The architecture, artifice and rhythm are all attuned to temporarily satisfy this faculty or give it diversion.  For then, and only then, can man’s intuitive center be accessed and appealed to.  There in man’s heart, without the protection of rationalized reality, real change is both possible and necessary.
 
Disclaimers and Biases
   
           Science requires redundancy to compensate for human error.  And so I will elucidate, at the outset of this effort, some concepts that might be responsible for any errors in the construction of my science.  Unfortunately, I have biases and assumptions that are untested, not implied by the hypothesis that might impair my judgment.  I do not have the means to subject all of the insights that inform this work to the rigorous process of critical analysis.  Take the following ideas as admittance of such.  So that I may be excused from the ridicule that is given to those who profess a knowledge of the truth, I humbly offer some glaring defects in my objective capacity.  
           I believe that man and society are in danger.  That is a bias of mine.  It is an assumption without any proof.  History is a collection of details that all together do not make an accurate enough picture to provide any comparative analysis.  There is no way of knowing whether life is better now for human beings.  There is also no evidence that qualitative judgments can be applied to life in any way.  It is absolutely possible that these feelings of mine, although real, have no basis in fact.  However, this work is constructed on top of a foundation of zealous discontent.  
           Also, I will cite no other authors in my efforts to support these claims.  I have many influences to be sure but I will not degrade the value of my arguments by adding historical weight to this work.  I wish to be judged solely on the merits of the effort, not on my ability to retain information, not on the memorization or categorization of historical nuance.  No authors will color the argument with their iconocized power.  This disclaimer represents my belief in the purity of this confrontation, when one human being’s expression meets another’s expectation.  There is real power in this experience and labeled quantities dilute that power.  I do not hide my feelings about life behind the qualification of my heroes.  I celebrate them by example.  
           Having said that, I have found my writing resembles, stylistically, that of my influences.  I am unsure of the connection between structure and content.  I mention it here because I wish the essence of this work not be lost in a literary discussion of form unless that discussion of form has an intention toward connecting the structure to the principle.  In other words, if this resembles philosophy, let it not be destroyed because of that association.  There is a notion that when one understands the structure of something then they understand the thing itself.  That notion is atomistic and categorical.  Science, as we were raised to understand it, was nurtured with atomistic promises.  The human soul was often exercised from this process in the hopes that we would be granted a clearer picture of the structure of reality.  Do not make that same mistake with this work.  I have not created this with the intention of oversimplified beauty.  I have made every effort to provide a list of ideas sans elegance that I find helpful to the survival of my soul within a human community in decline.  And so, you will find nourishment here only if you drink from the fountain with thirst.  
           Also, I say hesitantly, active in this work is an attitude toward wealth that is unfriendly.  I wish to be forthright about that.  I maintain the attitude that accumulation is an affront to equality.  If my adherence to that principle has made the construction of this science tedious and sometimes complicated I beg your patience.  I find it difficult to ignore the suffering of my fellow human beings and even more so to entertain the ridiculous notion that no connection exists between wealth and poverty.  My lack of detachment is offered up as a defense against those that will attack this work as impractical.  My attitude toward practicality is similarly entrenched.  
           And finally, this work includes a set of approaches to life.  Talking about it, debating its value, keeping life within the world of reason will have none of the value that actual application is apt to supply.             I assume that those who will receive this work most enthusiastically are those who might have written it themselves.  I hope that there is more to expression than the validation of like-minded individuals.  It is my intimate hope in every act of expression to be surprised by its value, to find some unknown quantity of power in the divine spark that gives me life.  Let us be aware of that desire as we move forward together.  
           And so, I have presented my biases and untested assumptions.  It is by no means an exhaustive list but I believe it represents the major themes that dominate my unknowing heart.  It is suggested in this work that human progress can be made by human beings, creatures who make mistakes.  In fact, it is argued that error is essential to the process. I have had much difficulty in eliminating the previous notions from my personal life; they have impeded me, provided resistance to my growth.  They are, for all intents and purposes, responsible for my personality.  I present them for intimacy’s sake but also to detach them from my principles.  If you wish you are welcome to leave them here in the introduction.  Most likely they will be of no use to you inside the body of the work.
 
Terms
   
           Now that I have introduced the hypothesis and presented elements that might work against it let us move on to developing an understanding of the terms that will be used in the defense of this argument.  
           Science is a term that describes the process through which a human being gains greater understanding.  Its aim is to augment the understanding of objects within reality.  Ideas, things, people, phenomena, philosophies, culture, the weather, the world, the universe, all of these exist within reality and are, because of this, available to science as objects of study.  When we have been faced with objects that threatened us as a species it is essential to the story of our survival, and our understanding of living, that we give credit to the faculty of intuitive learning that helped us to rise above the unsympathetic process of evolution.  Our elevated position as a species is due to nothing other than our ability to survive regardless of changes to our environment.  It is to this adaptive ability that some, a few hundred years ago, would assign the term science.  And so, when using that term in this work I will continually refer to science’s relationship with survival.  This collective objectivity that would become the binding essence of our sociological framework acted in a protective capacity long before there was any idea or word to describe it.  
           And so, if one looks at the dynamics of historical struggle or the simpler problem solving in daily life we will see that in moments of crisis, when one’s survival is threatened, whether it be the survival of a relationship, a nation, a business, etc. human beings turn to reason in order to find some unity of purpose.  This submission to rational dialogue demands an unselfish obedience to the results of the inquiry.  Thus, only in times of crisis, where something collective is threatened, do we turn to this approach for answers.  Otherwise, most maintain a self-centered existence trusting to nature.  
           It is no surprise that during the middle ages, a time where the human environment was plagued by disease and thoughtful men were threatened by religious extremism, that this faculty of ours to survive, with a collective and experimental spirit, would be given a recognizable and logically defensible architecture.  Science was born then, as an institution, to salvage our primal human urge to survive.  It would owe its allegiance to the same sacrificial spirit from which the Middle Ages were derived, as does every other successful human movement or organization.  
           Science, seen in this light, is a metaphor for faith.  It is a symbol for our primal optimism, the spark of intellect that compels us to learn.  Science is that voice that answers the call of fear or curiosity that is aroused when people are confronted with the unknown. And in nurturing this faculty, this set of internal principles that yield knowledge, one’s awareness of his/her environment is enriched and thus are his/her choices.  More educated choices increase the chances for happiness and security.  So science is that practice by which humans survive and grow.  It has its purpose in the fulfillment of the natural human desire for joyful coexistence with nature.  As a term, science, in this work, will represent this innate type of engagement whereby men and women confront obstacles with a willingness to learn and eventually transcend them.
 
The Institution
 
           As I mentioned earlier every successful human institution is born from a sacrificial spirit, gaining its propriety from its benefit to the common good.  As science has become one of the capital institutions in our civilization, we must ask ourselves whether or not this organization is remaining true to its mission to provide greater understanding of reality to humanity thus increasing our capacity for joyful existence.  Or, has it begun the downward spiral of corruption and greed that signals the death of institutions, veering off course from its purpose?  If that is the case, the scientific community could actually contribute, due to this greed, to the degradation of consciousness.  Are they decreasing our understanding of objects within reality by flooding the environment with new technologies without any wisdom to guide us in our use of it?  Do they question the appropriate application of research?  Do they align their science with any ethical standard?  Have they so polarized from religion that they have, out of spite, become devilish, evil?  Perhaps.  
           It is my aim, in this introductory discussion of terms, to separate the activity of science from the institution bearing its name.  It is not critique I am aiming at.  Rather, it is an attempt to resurrect the notion of survival to a dying and apathetic civilization.
            The science of living is a holistic approach to surviving within a toxic environment, adapting and finding fellowship around the universal principles that have safeguarded humanity throughout our history.  The conscious redundancy of the term is meant to draw attention to the semantic relationship between scientific thinking and survival and the dependence upon communal and egalitarian approaches to the allocation of resources.  Science therefore, is living.  Science is that activity that helps us to thrive and adapt.  It is dependent upon altruistic motives for its appropriate application.  And living is a science, demanding intuition, willingness to experiment and the courage to draw conclusions.  The results of my study and the process they gave birth to, though imperfect, are offered in a spirit of brotherhood with an attitude of rebellion aimed at the corrupt institutions that threaten our survival as noble creatures.  The sins of science, as an institution, have amassed themselves beyond the point of absolution.  Let them drop bombs and mutilate nature for they are the whores of industry.  I will busy myself with a science of living.  I will adapt.  I will find new ways to protect wisdom and the common good.
 
The Isolation of the Thinker
 
           I would not work so hard to satisfy the reason unless I felt that it could work against us as a unit, author and reader.  I hope that this work is gentle, as it does challenge the reader to distinguish between the use of his/her reason and the corruption of that faculty into rationalization.  The aggressive nature of this assertion compels me to assure you that it is not made out of contempt.  I have purposely added this final section of the introduction in order to address the tension that exists, that collective mistrust, between thoughtful individuals.  This tension which gives rise to cynicism and bitterness can be destructive to the development of intimacy between authors and readers, friends, family members, co-workers,etc.  It is innate to all relationships in times of corruption but since as author and reader we can assume that both of us are thoughtful members of society I wish to illustrate a more specific form of that tension.
            We will be speaking, within the work, of forces; societal, spiritual, psychological forces, etc. that are at work in our lives.  All social phenomena arise from a relationship between two or more of these forces.  The phenomenon I wish to address in this section, as it concerns our relationship as author and reader, is something I call the alienation of the thinker.  The thinker in our society, having experienced this alienation in various ways, often encounters new experiences, new works, and new people with cynical mistrust.  This attitude is something I wish to deconstruct here, from the beginning in order to move into the work with, at least, a modicum of hopeful enthusiasm.
The structure of this alienation can be understood by delineating the types of forces that make up different phenomena into two groups.  If our hope for survival is dependent upon a set of principal forces then the threat to that hope, the dark force of destruction, must also be comprised of its own set of principles that work in opposition to growth.  If there are principles that work to uplift the spirit of man and these can be understood as forces, then they must act in resistance to some force of opposition.  Effort is the unfortunate evidence of this duality.  In order to get to the cause of our alienation it is not necessary to imply that what opposes our unity is fully conscious.  I will refrain from proposing that what works against progress can be found in the evil heart of an identifiable enemy.  Rather, I argue that there are structural weaknesses in the architecture of society.  Our foundation is cracked and the walls have become brittle.  The shelter of law no longer protects its inhabitants.  This is not as much a matter of evil as it is of age.  The preliminary mistrust that exists between us, as reader and author, is an unfortunate side-affect of living in a dying culture.  Sadder still is that there are those that would rather live in a house full of leaks with the stench of rot than exert the effort required to build a new home, a new shelter for those forces that protect our unity.  
           As we look further at the structure, at both the explicit and internal government of peoples, there are ways in which thinking men and women experience isolation; that is, the feeling and experience of being alone.  This aloneness, the spiritually melancholic detachment from one’s community, often matures into a rigid disregard for one’s fellows.  Sadness and anger are two fruits of the same tree.  They stem from a lack of belonging.  It is a physiological reaction to a deficiency of one our primary needs as human beings.  Thoughtful people, sensitive people, curious people, intuitive people, people who ask big questions, people who wish to understand the larger picture; these people are often the first, in a corrupt society to begin to feel the affects of isolation for these people are particularly dependent upon principles for their nourishment and when the principles that govern society become fuzzy or contradictory they begin to seek out similarly engaged people in order to find clarity.
            As this search for unity, personal unification and community integration, becomes more and more difficult the thinking man or woman experiences something worse than alienation – hopelessness.  At this point the alienation of the thinker reaches its acute stage.  Many who have experienced this have found ways to cope with it.  These enlightened individuals find contentment in spite of their loneliness, due to a profound piety, taking pleasure in pursuing their principles of generosity and respect but they are impaired by the handicap of isolation, lacking a true thriving community of loving and thoughtful individuals.  These men and women are like people with wooden legs, able to do the chores of daily life but unable to lead any charge.  Hopelessness is lurking in the lives of such people.  This work argues that there is further healing, further levels of community that the thinker can experience and, most importantly, that he/she is entitled to that experience.
            Yes, this work has a challenging tone.  That is because I believe that, although society has its role in our mutual alienation, our greatest struggle is to be found in the achievement of unity between thinking men and women, rational and justice-loving people.  To that population of wooden-legged thinkers, frustrated by impotence and neglect, I wish to provide some tools for the uncovering of those universal principles that will safeguard us in this difficult time.  Once we have a network of mutual respect and support nothing can stand in our way.  However, to accomplish such a thing requires more than an excited passion.  One must embark on a quest to find the golden thread that unites us.  What is there within our principles that is common, that is pure, that is to be the bedrock of the new age?  That is our challenge and our hope.
            Many men and women who consider themselves thoughtful, educated or enlightened are rigidly adhering to a personal science.  Their experiments are their own and they do not subject the results to the testing ground of community.  In this way they lack any accuracy and their growth is substantially stunted.  Their wisdom is like a ship trapped in a bottle.  In order for us all to get onto the open sea, with the ability to exchange ideas, we must break the bottles that mutate our vision of reality.
            And so I hope this work has a breaking quality, shattering the delusions of individuality and the romance of the lone genius.  I offer some notions of what is common between us and what can be built upon.  Bring with you your cynicism and disbelief and arrogance, if you must.  Be assured that only you see the world the way it is and position that against some of these new principles, if you must.  Our relationship can be a struggle or a love affair.  Either way, our survival depends upon the development of mutuality.  The propositions you are about to encounter are made on a universal scale.  They attempt to answer that question, “What shall we do?”
            You might as well bring with you an attitude of curiosity and enthusiasm.  For what is ahead is not simply a description of the problem.  It is a suggested solution to the troubled world.  Open your heart to the idea that we, author and reader, might discover the mechanism that will help us evolve into the next great age of humanity.  That way, even if I fail, you might be more inclined to have the kind of insight that might saveus.  For isolation is anathema to insight.  Such is the insidiousness of that dark force working to destroy us that it puts thinking men and women in such isolation that they lose not only their rights to fellowship but also the capacities that made them a threat in the first place.
            In summary, all thoughtful men and women seek unity, intimacy and fellowship but what they lack is a systematic approach to the achievement of these goals.  So it was in the Middle Ages when the scientific revolution provided the much-needed progressive outlook.  So it was in the Late Roman Empire when Christianity gave quarter to man’s spiritual longings.  So it was during the early days of civilization when democracy provided protection for the law.  Every movement toward progress is one where the intuitive nature, responsible for our survival as a species, is given its proper place in the framework of society.  And so this science of living is a systemized approach to revolution, not a violent overtaking of power; rather, the overwhelming moral evolutionary process that is to be given credit for our growth as human beings.  And with that we come to the end of the introduction, where I will set you to the work ahead.  I hope I have provided an adequate preparation for the text.