One of the motivations for my late-in-life forays into philosophy is a conviction that human civilization is in a period of existential crisis. [1] I think that humankind will either work through this crisis and create the Second Worldwide Civilization, or it will fail. Failure will be disastrous. Failure could leave humankind on a devastated planet that may not be capable of the biological and social evolution necessary for the creation of a non-primitive civilization.
I’m a fan of civilization. My view is that if there is any purpose in the creation and unfolding of the universe, it is in the creation of evermore complex and evermore inquisitive and creative life-forms on our own planet and elsewhere. I recognize that my convictions are a form of religion.
Chris concludes this piece with an assertion and an exhortation:
_1) “we cannot trust our impressions of what we have not truly seen”
_2) “if we want to get anywhere close to the truth we simply cannot afford to leap” to half-backed conclusions.
In as far as I understand them, I think the above two statements are true. My remarks will just attempt to point to why they should be taken to heart.
Of the approximately eight billion humans presently alive on this planet, only a tiny few care about knowing objective truth. Most of humanity is content to live within the boundaries of their own subjective truth. The few of us that do wish to comprehend a bit of objective truth need to understand that given the nature of the bodies that evolution has given us, it is impossible for us to know the truth about objective reality in any absolute sense The best we can do is achieve partial agreement that the mental models we construct about what’s-out-there are close enough to what is that any actions we take do not result in catastrophe.
How can we do this? First we need to start with a consensus that any assertion we wish to accept as true must fit into the multi-dimensional mosaic of other assertions that we currently accept as true. Second, we need a consensus that unemotional, rational, good faith discourse is the best tool we have for approximating truth. [2] What our mythical Hindu seers need to do is (1) accept the report of each seer as true, (2) construct a mental model in which each seer’s observation can be true, and (3) from this mental model logically construct other assertions that should be true and can be tested by evidence.
Midgley’s jelly rolls can provide a useful example. Suppose we take additional “downward slices” at 20, 30, 40, 50 degrees off the perpendicular. Now we have a series of patterns in which the spirals start to lengthen out and approach straight lines.
Notes
[1] This conviction is based on my understanding of various social reality entities. By nature, in any healthy civilization there will always be some level of discord. Presently we are not only experiencing very high levels of discord, but our fundamental notions, and behavior, of civility diminish daily.
[2] Often an individual mind is the first to propose a truth. Usually such a proposition is preceded by discourse with other individuals. And usually all true propositions are later modified or extended.
Thanks for your commentary, Frank. I have only one key objection for now, and it is in regards to this:
"Of the approximately eight billion humans presently alive on this planet, only a tiny few care about knowing objective truth. Most of humanity is content to live within the boundaries of their own subjective truth."
This construction, which is a bastardisation of Kant's first Critique, is a very common one that would find (too) many people nodding with agreement. But I think this is one of those situations where a deep and important truth has become ossified into a misleading and dangerous lie.
At heart, what you have here is a restatement of Plato's allegory of the cave - you want to say, most people are content to stay in the cave (subjective truth) and don't venture outside to get the real picture (objective truth). But this is problematic in so many different ways, the most salient of which is: you don't get to leave the cave, and the clues required to construct a model that attempts to approximate 'objective truth' are all 'subjective', which undermines the entire divide. This in some respects is the essence of Nietzsche's abyss, or the post-modern "post-truth" crisis that has only accelerated in the last ten years. The objective-subjective construction has itself become problematic. I hope to brush up against some of these problems in April here on Stranger Worlds, and we'll certainly get into it more deeply on the other side of next month.
And on a related note:
"we need a consensus that unemotional, rational, good faith discourse is the best tool we have for approximating truth."
You can kick out 'unemotional, rational' here - we just need good faith discourse. Pretending that there is such a thing as 'unemotional, rational' discourse that is also 'good faith discourse' is part of what got us into this precarious state in the first place. It is a key tool that has empowered imperial technocracy: an utter denial of the most basic truth of humanity - that rationality and emotionality are inseparable, and that the insistence that adopting the mythical position of 'unemotional and rational' (which is impossible and undesirable) is something that some can do and others can't. That, right there, is the key tool of all empire: you must submit because we know better.
Many thanks for your engagement and thoughtful commentaries,
Today is my birthday. I’m 84. Birthdays have a new kick. My gosh, I’ still alive! And I can still think thoughts! Sorta. And write?
Some months ago, I had a fantasy. I was a “senior scholar” at Oxford. I meet once a week with a don who would critique my week’s work, point out my areas of ignorance, and send me off with mind ablaze, and at least one topic to research.
Well, perhaps you are not an oxford don. But you are a Brit!
The fly in my ointment is that I don’t have digs at Oxford. Living an ordinary married life in a Southern California development, I have less that 40 hours a week for ALL discretionary tasks. Perforce, these include several tasks other than chewing on my don’s research suggestions and writing bits for him to comment on. I’m also cursed with a memory that was never very good and is now problematic, so it’s notes, notes, and more notes. Grep, Google, and now ChatGPT help, bit still.
Happy birthday Frank! Would that I shall be as spritely of mind as you in my 80s. Honestly, I'll be astonished if I even make it that far - I was impressed to make it to 50! And I long since filled up my memory with assorted junk like persistent 1980s advertising jingles, so I have constructed vast storehouses of notes and quotes that substitute for being able to remember. Exogenous memory storage is one of the blessings of our species. Many happy returns!
Yes. Absolutely. Of Course.
One of the motivations for my late-in-life forays into philosophy is a conviction that human civilization is in a period of existential crisis. [1] I think that humankind will either work through this crisis and create the Second Worldwide Civilization, or it will fail. Failure will be disastrous. Failure could leave humankind on a devastated planet that may not be capable of the biological and social evolution necessary for the creation of a non-primitive civilization.
I’m a fan of civilization. My view is that if there is any purpose in the creation and unfolding of the universe, it is in the creation of evermore complex and evermore inquisitive and creative life-forms on our own planet and elsewhere. I recognize that my convictions are a form of religion.
Chris concludes this piece with an assertion and an exhortation:
_1) “we cannot trust our impressions of what we have not truly seen”
_2) “if we want to get anywhere close to the truth we simply cannot afford to leap” to half-backed conclusions.
In as far as I understand them, I think the above two statements are true. My remarks will just attempt to point to why they should be taken to heart.
Of the approximately eight billion humans presently alive on this planet, only a tiny few care about knowing objective truth. Most of humanity is content to live within the boundaries of their own subjective truth. The few of us that do wish to comprehend a bit of objective truth need to understand that given the nature of the bodies that evolution has given us, it is impossible for us to know the truth about objective reality in any absolute sense The best we can do is achieve partial agreement that the mental models we construct about what’s-out-there are close enough to what is that any actions we take do not result in catastrophe.
How can we do this? First we need to start with a consensus that any assertion we wish to accept as true must fit into the multi-dimensional mosaic of other assertions that we currently accept as true. Second, we need a consensus that unemotional, rational, good faith discourse is the best tool we have for approximating truth. [2] What our mythical Hindu seers need to do is (1) accept the report of each seer as true, (2) construct a mental model in which each seer’s observation can be true, and (3) from this mental model logically construct other assertions that should be true and can be tested by evidence.
Midgley’s jelly rolls can provide a useful example. Suppose we take additional “downward slices” at 20, 30, 40, 50 degrees off the perpendicular. Now we have a series of patterns in which the spirals start to lengthen out and approach straight lines.
Notes
[1] This conviction is based on my understanding of various social reality entities. By nature, in any healthy civilization there will always be some level of discord. Presently we are not only experiencing very high levels of discord, but our fundamental notions, and behavior, of civility diminish daily.
[2] Often an individual mind is the first to propose a truth. Usually such a proposition is preceded by discourse with other individuals. And usually all true propositions are later modified or extended.
Thanks for your commentary, Frank. I have only one key objection for now, and it is in regards to this:
"Of the approximately eight billion humans presently alive on this planet, only a tiny few care about knowing objective truth. Most of humanity is content to live within the boundaries of their own subjective truth."
This construction, which is a bastardisation of Kant's first Critique, is a very common one that would find (too) many people nodding with agreement. But I think this is one of those situations where a deep and important truth has become ossified into a misleading and dangerous lie.
At heart, what you have here is a restatement of Plato's allegory of the cave - you want to say, most people are content to stay in the cave (subjective truth) and don't venture outside to get the real picture (objective truth). But this is problematic in so many different ways, the most salient of which is: you don't get to leave the cave, and the clues required to construct a model that attempts to approximate 'objective truth' are all 'subjective', which undermines the entire divide. This in some respects is the essence of Nietzsche's abyss, or the post-modern "post-truth" crisis that has only accelerated in the last ten years. The objective-subjective construction has itself become problematic. I hope to brush up against some of these problems in April here on Stranger Worlds, and we'll certainly get into it more deeply on the other side of next month.
And on a related note:
"we need a consensus that unemotional, rational, good faith discourse is the best tool we have for approximating truth."
You can kick out 'unemotional, rational' here - we just need good faith discourse. Pretending that there is such a thing as 'unemotional, rational' discourse that is also 'good faith discourse' is part of what got us into this precarious state in the first place. It is a key tool that has empowered imperial technocracy: an utter denial of the most basic truth of humanity - that rationality and emotionality are inseparable, and that the insistence that adopting the mythical position of 'unemotional and rational' (which is impossible and undesirable) is something that some can do and others can't. That, right there, is the key tool of all empire: you must submit because we know better.
Many thanks for your engagement and thoughtful commentaries,
Chris.
Chris: A non-reply –
Today is my birthday. I’m 84. Birthdays have a new kick. My gosh, I’ still alive! And I can still think thoughts! Sorta. And write?
Some months ago, I had a fantasy. I was a “senior scholar” at Oxford. I meet once a week with a don who would critique my week’s work, point out my areas of ignorance, and send me off with mind ablaze, and at least one topic to research.
Well, perhaps you are not an oxford don. But you are a Brit!
The fly in my ointment is that I don’t have digs at Oxford. Living an ordinary married life in a Southern California development, I have less that 40 hours a week for ALL discretionary tasks. Perforce, these include several tasks other than chewing on my don’s research suggestions and writing bits for him to comment on. I’m also cursed with a memory that was never very good and is now problematic, so it’s notes, notes, and more notes. Grep, Google, and now ChatGPT help, bit still.
Happy birthday Frank! Would that I shall be as spritely of mind as you in my 80s. Honestly, I'll be astonished if I even make it that far - I was impressed to make it to 50! And I long since filled up my memory with assorted junk like persistent 1980s advertising jingles, so I have constructed vast storehouses of notes and quotes that substitute for being able to remember. Exogenous memory storage is one of the blessings of our species. Many happy returns!
Chris.