the anthropomorphic reality

Genesis 1:27 states:
וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ, בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא אֹתוֹ: זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה, בָּרָא אֹתָם.
"God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."

and thus began the indiscriminate personification of objectivity to suit the human experience. if we were created in god's image, does it follow that he is "like unto us"? take for example, dolls which we humans create in our image: are they "like unto us"? indeed they may resemble us in the attributes which we willingly ascribe to them for the sole purpose of humanising these creations. and thus we have an infinitely differentiated realm for creativity and diversity when creating dolls. but is it fair to parallel this creation process with gen1:27? is it true that god has willingly ascribed various godly attributes unto us such that we resemble him? the problem here is that we, as the created, cannot tell with certainty, just as dolls probably have no idea how alike they are to their creators. yet our creator has given us the ability to think, to feel, and to reason, which to our best efforts have not been replicated genuinely in our creations thus far. thus, i contend that a proper parallel cannot be drawn as yet between human-doll creationism and god-human creationism. an extrapolation made from an incomplete presumption cannot stand as truth.

unfortunately, much of this prudence is lost in human history. we have attributed human characteristics to almost anything we come across. indeed, such is our limitation that our minds can only be creative insofar as that creativity lies within the finite realms of human experience - i.e. we simply can't imagine a god that is far from human likeness. and so our explanations for occurences in reality are constricted, tied to the leash of human-ness which we can't seem to escape. we are self-made prisoners of our language, mental schemata, cultural influence, and individual personalities. anthropomorhism is very much the de facto modus operandi of humanity, much like how materialism forms the superstructure of capitalist society.

yet these "human characteristics" are themselves crudely defined. philosophers have ruminated for centuries and are still unable to decide what makes us human. we can only grope around with a vague understanding of these ideals, consciously and subconsciously reinforcing each others' beliefs that to be "humane" is to be benevolent, welcoming, disciplined, etc - the proverbial "all things good". yet truthfully, the assertion that humanity tends towards goodness is deeply unorganised and lacking in parsimony or falsifiability, and so are any other exotic contentions for a generalised etiology of human characteristics. can there ever be a scientific evaluation of this human-ness?

and therefore i propose a new objectivity - one that brings an intention to reject anthropomorphic interpretations of reality. for reality and existence is not a human creation, and indeed until we can call our understanding of such phenomena "sufficient", we ought only tread with prudence when creating theoretical frameworks to "make sense of things". the scientific method stands as a rudimentary form of anti-anthropomorphic objectivity, yet i must admonish that careless treatment can still allow anthropomorphic elements to seep through - whether it is forming a hypothesis, designing an experiment, or interpreting data.

but some doubts linger. is it possible to maintain such a level of objectivity when it seems to take superhuman consciousness in every step of deliberation? could such an attempt be considered an exercise in "dehumanising" the inquirer? ultimately, would the removal of our anthropomorphic veil truly and uncompromisingly allow us to see reality with more clarity?

if we can't settle some of the questions raised here, we may permanently be unable to escape from the anthropomorphic prison that we have constructed for ourselves. but why would anyone want to escape it?

for a more contemporary discussion of anthropomorphism (free from gerg-thropomorphic contamination), simply wikipedia for it.