![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
qwiddityJust in case you think you're missing out entirely, I've decided to make an entry late at night when I'm bored, with nothing else to do but re-evaluate my understanding of the human condition within the confines of the world we all happen to find ourselves in. Are you ready? Well, deep breaths or something...
What do we have coffee for? What does anyone have coffee for really, anyway? Its just coffee, after all. Well, to a romantically inclined person coffee is from heaven, whereas to a classically minded person the coffee is just processed beans which taste bitter. The classic and romantic modes of reality exist split neatly between two separate worlds of thought. The difference is that the theoretic vs. esthetic split is between two components of a single conceptual world, while the classic vs. romantic split is between two separate worlds.
There is a theoretical component to existence which appears to have found firm roots in Western culture, and an esthetic component also which corresponds more to Eastern modes of thought. Classically minded individuals would appear to have an advantage in most scientific fields, in which the application of the scientific method and the concept of the hypothesis has held in check various understandings of science which are brought into being somewhat laterally (meaning that the growth of knowledge in science doesn't act like an arrow in flight, but rather expands peripherally, usually in entirely unintended or unimagined directions). Truths arrived at laterally, especially in the experimental process can point to any falseness within the axioms and postulates which underlay the system of discovering truth.
Institutions which have anything to do with education (e.g. schools, universities, colleges, churches, governments, political organisations of every flavour, etc.) for the most part tend to direct thought for ends other than the pursuit of truth. This is mostly to ensure the continued perpetuation of their own functions, which is simply self-preservation observed within a social organisation. This is not to say they are without value! Just that it is difficult to break away from many of the processes taught in the classical methodology, with the result that many brilliant realisations cannot be nearly as original as would be preferred.
Meandering through the split between the classic and romantic, the theoretic and esthetic brings us eventually to the only field which is capable of at least intellectually bridging an understanding of our existence. To name it, Philosophy is thought of as the highest echelon of the hierarchy of 'knowledge'. Science has many problems with self-evaluation mostly because of the nature of the scientific method. Science cannot study the scientific method without grinding down into bootstrapping problems that destroys the validity of its answers. By comparison the world of classical science can be reduced to a mere branch of philosophy (something which I'm sure has been overstated so many times that it has become something of a platitude amongst philosophers).
So in Philosophy there is a natural continuation of the overall questions which brought us to the scientific method in the first instance, What does it all mean? What's the purpose of all this?
Well then...
If all of human knowledge, everything that's known, is believed to be an enormous hierarchic structure, then the deepest realisations are to be found in the uppermost areas of the structure, the areas containing the most general understandings and the most abstract considerations of all. This is an uncertain area of human thought at the best of times, and it can be difficult to make inroads in an atmosphere of uncertainty. To outline, What is truth and how do you know when you have it? How do you really know that you can know anything in a universe without absolutes? When its said that a statement means something, what's actually meant by that? How do we know that the meaning of the statement is carried as it was intended?
So there's not a lot of real progress to make here. There's another argument that almost no progress has been made since the dawn of primitive civilisation, which sounds popular in a romantic way, but which doesn't hold water. Ancient wars and social cruelties were committed with far less justification than in modern times. Most of the studies of ancient times often omit the detractions of primitive life--the pain, the disease, famine, the unending hard labour needed to stay alive. From that bare life, modern existence can be soberly described only as upward progress, and the sole agent of this progress is reason itself.
One can see how both the informal and formal processes of hypothesis, experimentation, conclusion, century after century, repeated with new material each iteration has built up the hierarchies of thought which eliminated most of the problems of early civilisation. To some extent the romantic condemnation of rationality for this state of affairs stems from the efficacy of rationality itself in uplifting populations through the technological ages. Classical scientific methods combined with rational modes of thought have become such a powerful, all-dominating agent of civilised humans that it has all but shut out other modes of thought.
The current cause of the arising social crisis (the split between the worlds of the classic and romantic), comes about more because of a defect within the nature of reason itself. Our current modes of rationality are not moving society forward into a better world at the same rate any longer. Since the Renaissance these modes have worked. As long as the needs for food, clothing, and shelter are dominant they will continue to work. But now that for huge masses of people these needs no longer overwhelm everything else, the whole structure of reason, handed down to us through our educational organisations through ancient times, is no longer adequate. It begins to be seen for what it really is -- emotionally hollow and spiritually empty. Imagine a vision of a continuing future social crisis that nobody really understands the depth of. Romantics are at risk of living lost and alienated from the whole rational structure of civilised life, looking for their own solutions outside that structure, but finding none that are satisfactory over long periods of time. Classics run the risk of living life as an isolated abstraction in some laboratory somewhere, concerned with the same crisis but moving in the opposite direction.
Now we've reached an impasse. Our reason, which is supposed to make things more intelligible, appears to be making them less intelligible (a stunningly contemporary dilemma).
So it would seem only reasonable that if the power of reason defeats its own purpose, then something must be altered in the structure of our reason itself.
What do we have coffee for? What does anyone have coffee for really, anyway? Its just coffee, after all. Well, to a romantically inclined person coffee is from heaven, whereas to a classically minded person the coffee is just processed beans which taste bitter. The classic and romantic modes of reality exist split neatly between two separate worlds of thought. The difference is that the theoretic vs. esthetic split is between two components of a single conceptual world, while the classic vs. romantic split is between two separate worlds.
There is a theoretical component to existence which appears to have found firm roots in Western culture, and an esthetic component also which corresponds more to Eastern modes of thought. Classically minded individuals would appear to have an advantage in most scientific fields, in which the application of the scientific method and the concept of the hypothesis has held in check various understandings of science which are brought into being somewhat laterally (meaning that the growth of knowledge in science doesn't act like an arrow in flight, but rather expands peripherally, usually in entirely unintended or unimagined directions). Truths arrived at laterally, especially in the experimental process can point to any falseness within the axioms and postulates which underlay the system of discovering truth.
Institutions which have anything to do with education (e.g. schools, universities, colleges, churches, governments, political organisations of every flavour, etc.) for the most part tend to direct thought for ends other than the pursuit of truth. This is mostly to ensure the continued perpetuation of their own functions, which is simply self-preservation observed within a social organisation. This is not to say they are without value! Just that it is difficult to break away from many of the processes taught in the classical methodology, with the result that many brilliant realisations cannot be nearly as original as would be preferred.
Meandering through the split between the classic and romantic, the theoretic and esthetic brings us eventually to the only field which is capable of at least intellectually bridging an understanding of our existence. To name it, Philosophy is thought of as the highest echelon of the hierarchy of 'knowledge'. Science has many problems with self-evaluation mostly because of the nature of the scientific method. Science cannot study the scientific method without grinding down into bootstrapping problems that destroys the validity of its answers. By comparison the world of classical science can be reduced to a mere branch of philosophy (something which I'm sure has been overstated so many times that it has become something of a platitude amongst philosophers).
So in Philosophy there is a natural continuation of the overall questions which brought us to the scientific method in the first instance, What does it all mean? What's the purpose of all this?
Well then...
If all of human knowledge, everything that's known, is believed to be an enormous hierarchic structure, then the deepest realisations are to be found in the uppermost areas of the structure, the areas containing the most general understandings and the most abstract considerations of all. This is an uncertain area of human thought at the best of times, and it can be difficult to make inroads in an atmosphere of uncertainty. To outline, What is truth and how do you know when you have it? How do you really know that you can know anything in a universe without absolutes? When its said that a statement means something, what's actually meant by that? How do we know that the meaning of the statement is carried as it was intended?
So there's not a lot of real progress to make here. There's another argument that almost no progress has been made since the dawn of primitive civilisation, which sounds popular in a romantic way, but which doesn't hold water. Ancient wars and social cruelties were committed with far less justification than in modern times. Most of the studies of ancient times often omit the detractions of primitive life--the pain, the disease, famine, the unending hard labour needed to stay alive. From that bare life, modern existence can be soberly described only as upward progress, and the sole agent of this progress is reason itself.
One can see how both the informal and formal processes of hypothesis, experimentation, conclusion, century after century, repeated with new material each iteration has built up the hierarchies of thought which eliminated most of the problems of early civilisation. To some extent the romantic condemnation of rationality for this state of affairs stems from the efficacy of rationality itself in uplifting populations through the technological ages. Classical scientific methods combined with rational modes of thought have become such a powerful, all-dominating agent of civilised humans that it has all but shut out other modes of thought.
The current cause of the arising social crisis (the split between the worlds of the classic and romantic), comes about more because of a defect within the nature of reason itself. Our current modes of rationality are not moving society forward into a better world at the same rate any longer. Since the Renaissance these modes have worked. As long as the needs for food, clothing, and shelter are dominant they will continue to work. But now that for huge masses of people these needs no longer overwhelm everything else, the whole structure of reason, handed down to us through our educational organisations through ancient times, is no longer adequate. It begins to be seen for what it really is -- emotionally hollow and spiritually empty. Imagine a vision of a continuing future social crisis that nobody really understands the depth of. Romantics are at risk of living lost and alienated from the whole rational structure of civilised life, looking for their own solutions outside that structure, but finding none that are satisfactory over long periods of time. Classics run the risk of living life as an isolated abstraction in some laboratory somewhere, concerned with the same crisis but moving in the opposite direction.
Now we've reached an impasse. Our reason, which is supposed to make things more intelligible, appears to be making them less intelligible (a stunningly contemporary dilemma).
So it would seem only reasonable that if the power of reason defeats its own purpose, then something must be altered in the structure of our reason itself.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-05-01 11:11 am (UTC)Well written though :)
no subject
Date: 2003-05-05 03:12 am (UTC)As far as pinnacles of existence go, here's an interesting question: Do you think that the ancient Greeks, if they realised how far short their understanding of the universe fell from reality (say that of modern-day physics), would have produced much of the scientific or philosophical work that they did?
no subject
Date: 2003-05-01 04:48 pm (UTC)There's some stuff in my head you should have.
But you'll have to pick the right time to shake it all out. ;)
no subject
Date: 2003-05-05 03:13 am (UTC)At some point where there's coffee and a spare 1/2 hour or so?
no subject
Date: 2003-05-01 05:35 pm (UTC)Is there a soul? Or is there merely an instinct driven need for social behavior in humans hard coded into our DNA as a leftover remnant of our evolution.
Currently, you can pretty much live your whole life completely alone if you have the talent to land a telemarketing job, but that person in isolation would probably be misirable and not understand why.
Sustain the machine (company), the machine sustains you. But the machine is unforgiving, when you falter it shuns you. In a way it's very primitive, survivial of the fittest, evolution continues on.
But this is not how humans evolved. We were not solitary predators like the tiger who come together with others of our kind only when necessary (to reproduce). We evolved by working together, we lived together, we interacted and found comfort in eachother.
We were more than just a cog in the wheel of life, we were an inseperable componant, together.
Anyway, I'm digressing. What exactly is spirituality and how does one keep it up.
Is spirituality only being prepared for what happens after death? Can you be spiritually strong alone? Or is spirituality more about being with and helping others and having them help you and feeling like part of an extended family.
And if spirituality is more about social interaction, then is it really spirituality, or is it merely instinct?
sorry... more questions than answers there...
no subject
Date: 2003-05-05 03:22 am (UTC)If you're receptive, you can find a spiritual element in any gathering, depending on whats going on... ? Like rallies, parties, concerts, etc. Is that what you mean?
no subject
Date: 2003-05-01 05:44 pm (UTC)LJ won't let you edit your comments anymore?
Anyway one thing I forgot to mention above is... "Where are the tribes in today's modern world?" It's all about individuals, you against me against him against all of them.
If you were the member of a tribe, you were with them for life no? You cared for the tribe because it cared for you.
Actually I guess some smaller churches still behave in this way, but certainly not the big ones... all they want is your money.
no subject
Date: 2003-05-01 08:09 pm (UTC)And best of all we actually choose our memberships, we're not thrown together through some accident of geography and lineage ...
no subject
Date: 2003-05-01 09:10 pm (UTC)There's the geek tribe, the goth tribe, the pint-of-bitter-down-the-pub-after-work tribe ... They even have their tribal leaders. The geeks have RMS and Linus, the goths have Robert Smith or some other icon of that ilk ...
no subject
Date: 2003-05-01 09:55 pm (UTC)For example, before the discovery of atoms, things were kind of chaotic. There wasn't much perceived order in things, and everything was thought to be made up of four basic elements; fire, water, earth and air. Adding one chemical to another would produce effects that were barely understood.
Then some people postulated that in fact there was a thing called the 'Atom', of which there were at least twenty or thirty basic elements which made up all matter. Its not really important (in the context of my point) who made the final discovery and how it was proved, but what is important that it brought order to the physical world.
Finally, scientists were able to show the exact elemental structure of things, and explain almost all chemical reactions using simple mathematics. This reality was ordered.
But now, we know there is a layer of reality smaller than the Atom - the quantum. And the quantum is indeterministic - it is made of particles that have strange properties - you can know where they are OR how fast they are going, but not both. And the very act of looking at a quantum particle, changes it's state.
It's postulated that there is a layer below this, which is deterministic and explains the non-deterministic behaviour of the quantum layer. And so on.
Why is this relevant to what you're talking about, you will be asking yourself?
Reading about your idea of 'hierarchies of thought' reminded me of this principle. It's not be proven, by the way - we still are not sure what is below the quantum, but it's interesting. If it's true, then the suggestion is that there is no end to the levels of reality; that we live in a truly fractal universe where what we perceive with our senses are but a fraction of the infinite. And a fraction of an infinite is ... well ... near enough to zero as can be. So we really know nothing at all.
Hence, I know nothing, and what I've been talking about bears no relation to what you were talking about. Or maybe it does, and I just don't know it? I need more coffee. Thats all I can claim to know.
When the coming social crisis overtakes us all and plunges the world into a technological barbarism from our darkest nightmares, I plan on leaving the planet and living on mars. Just this small matter of amassing 500 billion dollars for the airfare.
Zen-ness
Date: 2003-05-02 12:03 am (UTC)It had the same impact on me, and even caused me to do a few philosophy subjects before realizing that Phaedrus was the *exception* to the philosphy professor rule. All the stuff he rails against is still being taught today. Badly.
Re: Zen-ness
Date: 2003-05-05 03:32 am (UTC)Fortunately I've done a couple of philosophy subjects already... and yes you're right, badly. :(
no subject
Date: 2003-05-03 06:09 pm (UTC)