How Does the World Work?


  • See the About page for a description of the subjects of interest covered in this blog.

Series Indexes

Global Issues Blogroll

Blog powered by Typepad

Comment Policy

  • Comments
    Comments are open and welcome as long as they are not offensive or hateful. Also this site is commercial free so any comments that are offensive or promotional will be removed. Good questions are always welcome!

« On Preparing for Sabbatical | Main | Arrived in New York state! »

September 05, 2009

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Sudeep Bhaumick

One of your absolute bests ! I wish more people could just read and think about what you have written without getting biased.

Florifulgurator

Enlightening! The great puzzle of our time: Why are we able to peek deep into Nature's workings, and at the same time are so detached from her (up to geno-suicidal leanings)?

So, over abstraction is a key piece of the puzzle. Another piece is perhaps the human ego - but then: how can delusional abstractions serve a true ego for long?

Methinks there's an extenuating cause: It's not always us who seek abstractions. Abstraction sometimes just falls in place. Hold your mind wide open and abstractions fall in. Like memes, abstractions seek to procreate. And the poor mind they befall isn't always actively guilty. (That's at least my experience. I've been in abstract math research for a few years. It was not my IQ (non genius) that got me there, but a chain of ideas I either ran in or had the patience to wait for.)

The key to our survival is to get in touch (literally) with Nature again. Nuclear engineers call it feedback with reality. The erosion of that feedback began with the first city civilizations, when some dudes no longer got out in the fields but masturbated abstractions instead.

George Mobus

Thank you Sudeep. Feel free to pass the word along! But frankly, those who read my writings and have biases that corrupt the message, are probably not the ones I'm trying to reach.

Flor,

I really think sapience is the key to keeping the chain of abstraction grounded in reality. Why most people have difficulty doing that? The brain just hasn't quite developed adequate sapience in the general public. Even people with high IQ's or great creativity can be foolish in their choices. Conversely, people with average IQs can exercise very good judgment in life. As you may have gathered by some of my other writing, the only survival we need a key to is that of the genus Homo, not necessarily the current species sapiens.

George

GaryA

Nice one George...that all makes a lot of sense. I think that there are areas of science not immune to over-abstraction, based on ideological assumptions about the world. Two that spring to mind are neo-darwinsim and particle physics/string theory. Highly qualified 'insiders'Brig Klyce
http://www.panspermia.org/neodarw.htm
and Lee Smolin
http://www.thetroublewithphysics.com/
Have exposed the ambiguity of the theories and underlyling ideology of those involved ('physics envy' is not confined to economists, it is the main reason behind nonsensical neodarwinian equations!)
These theories projected onto the public domain- social darwinism 'selfish gene' and the nihlistic digitised universe, have had more influence than any philosopical theories and helped shape the world we inhabit.

NZSanctuary

Excellent description, George! As an advocate of Zen for many decades I have found this idea difficult to get across without a drawn out explanation - most people's eyes begin to glaze over. This will be a great resource.

Cheers

George Mobus

You are certainly right GaryA, science as it is practiced is not immune to over abstraction (actually neither is math for that matter). But what I find comforting in these two endeavors is the eventual self-correcting nature of the enterprise. Of course great damage can be done along the way (and certainly has been), but over the panorama of human experience it does seem that these corrections work themselves out.

Unfortunately we find ourselves with time as our enemy. Is there time for the process to work (say for example if economics were to become truly scientific as I hope the biophysical econ effort I'm involved with proves to be)? Would we still have enough time to switch from doing science to doing advocacy for policies that would matter once we had some reasonable answers? As you may know, I have my serious doubts in that regard. Still one must soldier on!!!!

George Mobus

Thank you NZSanctuary.

George

Dave

No one today believes in the gods atop Mount Olympus. If someone today were to tell you that there are all these jealous and angry gods up there bickering with each other, you would laugh at them for believing in such silly things. If this person sincerely believes that these gods occasionally come down to earth and futz with human life, choose favorites, have sex with mortals, and cause destruction of entire cities, they would be sent to an insane asylum.

Yet everybody talks about what the ‘economy’ is doing these days. We talk about the ‘wealth’ that has disappeared this year, and how the ‘market’ will always adjust and reward appropriate goods and services that have an appropriate ‘value’ and ‘price.’ We believe that the ‘government’ is out to get all our money and spend it wildly on crazy things as our ‘community’ is hurting and the ‘neighborhood’ to which we belong is being overrun by aliens.

Now, try to tell your neighbor that wealth, money, the economy, the market, government, community, and price are all abstractions created by society that only organize or describe physical reality, but do not themselves exist. They are real so far as individuals treat them as real. Tell your neighbor this, and they will think that you are insane.

Modern society says: Agree with our beliefs in these things as they exist, or we will lock you away. Doubt our beliefs, and you will be banished from our presence.

People who believe in something as silly as angry and jealous gods on Mount Olympus, and those who disbelieve the holy social constructs as they are popularly accepted, are deemed equally deranged. The Inquisition still exists, just with a slightly different orthodoxy.

George Mobus

Dave,

What you describe is probably largely true for the 'man or woman in the street', but don't you think that there is some progress being made among (I hate to use this word, but can't think of a better one at the moment) intellectuals. I get daily confirmation that many academics and even some smart but not PhD types are starting at least to question the dominant paradigm. I really do think there are many more influential people realizing that the way the world works isn't entirely the way we've been told it does, hence they are voicing doubts.

Now in the end this intellectual awakening might not do any good if the powers overwhelm the daily folk (man or woman in the street) in order to keep raking in the money.

George

The comments to this entry are closed.