I find it rather puzzling, although not surprising, as to why I didn't arrive to the following realization sooner in life.

Of course, it's not in the best interest of any given structured society or collective function to say that our collective being is based on "necessary assumptions" which we can't adequately support without collective agreement that these things are as agreed.

What I find fascinating is how much of our collective "axiomatic agreement" actually comes to play in our everyday life. And by that I mean "needing no support or adequate justification".

All of us have to agree on some surface meaning of language, which by nature is "axiomatic". Some of you may be reading this right now and mentally correcting my grammar, because some guy not so long ago was determined-enough to assume on behalf of everyone as to how we should sequence words to be "proper" :).

If we examine this issue along the developmental lines of the cultural axioms, we may understand as to why there's so much historical conflict in the world. We don't have enough "meta-cognitive" ability to see that virtually all off our collective human function is built on assumptions that we can't readily defend, thus we have to rely on authoritarian force to keep these structures together.

In such, it seems like all activity of human being is "political" when it comes to maintaining the structure that's built on maintaining collective consent. Virtually in all cases, these seem to depend on totalitarian pluralism to enforce and perpetuate "our understanding of reality".

Thus, we seldom throw out disclaimers like "Here's a structural foundation of reality that we believe in, but it's based on underlying assumptions that we can't really justify other than by our collective consent. If you don't agree ........ here's how we can accommodate that disagreement".

So, can it be said that from certain POV, virtually every society we have is a form of "pluralistic totalitarianism", because it requires subservience and conformity to a set of mainstream ideals in order to participate in such society?

There seems to be little difference in that regard when it comes to separating "religious", "political" and "scientific" activity when it comes to established orthodoxy. It seems like it's really not a matter of the "quality of thought", but eventually it's a matter of how many people will agree with you.

The consent seems to always trump the "reason", because that's how we seem to keep "reason" in check.

__________________________________________________


Keep in mind that I understand the utility and necessity of baseline assumptions in context of our collective being. I too see no viable alternatives. What's less clear as to:

1) Why do we tend to obfuscate the fact that virtually all of our structures of knowledge is axiomatic in regard to reality?

2) It clearly seems to me that a more egalitarian approach would be that of understanding and education in regards to "there are many better ways" as opposed to "this one way that you must do it".