Axiom Angst
Wednesday, 19. January 2005, 08:53:21
What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it? This is the Edge annual question for 2005, and it is one that has haunted me all day long. The answers posted on this website by the world's most accredited thinkers make me feel somewhat ashamed of myself. Most of their answers are so definitive, even if they wind up contradicting one another, and describe bone-deep conviction that Time is fiction, or that Faith drives humanity, in mathematical functions, or the irrational tendencies of the human psyche. There are so many interesting, strongly-held, unprovable beliefs. And what do I believe? In the scrutiny of my own beliefs, I find myself picking through the cupboard of my soul for my own juicy morsel of fervor or firmness. And instead I come face-to-face with what sets me apart from these great minds: doubt. For in the face of a question like this, I can claim nothing truly great to believe. My beliefs are small, self-oriented, negative in nature. I believe humanity is on the cusp of a Great Decline. I believe in Chaos. I believe in Human Fallibility, that we will always tend toward irrational and self-destructive behavior (as a whole). But I believe in these things because my interpretation of reality demonstrates evidence for them. Can I prove these things? No. Is it what I see? Yes.
It occurs to me that I am the enemy of people like the Edge contributors, those hopeful scientists and philosophers urging us onward, inspiring us like a corps of starry-eyed engineers to continually reconceive the universe. This must be the secret, the spur to our very existence. So what am I? Emily the Self-Loathing? Emily the Inhumane? Do I threaten our existence with my dark views? Am I the dark side of the Yin/Yang wheel? Am I devouring my own tail?
But instead of answers in my cupboard, there are only cobwebs, and dubious-looking cans with the labels long ago peeled off, and more questions. Have I met my nature or just my limited capacity to consider anything but my Self? Is that the thing that truly sets me not apart from, but beneath the Abstract Thinkers whose very convictions may weave the tapestries of reality? Or perhaps my destructive nature/pessimism/inferior intellect all go hand-in-hand.
It leads me to consider the very nature of conviction itself. What is it? Where does it come from? How does one obtain it without proof? The very act epitomizes irrational behavior! Yet I am lately more and more preoccupied with the idea that it may be possible to manifest reality simply by believing in it, by consciously or subconsciously defining its parameters. So, I am back to Schrödinger's cat, or back to the idea of thinking someone is dead who isn't (or, conversely, believeing them alive) and never receiving proof to the contrary. This would seem to be at least hypothetical evidence of multiple realities. (4:44) It is also noteworthy to consider the example of court testimonies, and how often there will be wild variations in eyewitness accounts of a single event. Each person brews up their own special pot of perceptions after filtering "reality" though the individual mind. And though I recognize the necessity for establishing some unified and coherent standards of Truth in order for society to function, it seems silly to me, like an interesting failure or an impossible experiment. The validity of all our perceptions can never be challenged. We can't even claim one single idea universally agreed upon in the mind of every Man. In the end, everything we understand is relatable only to our own Selves, and our understanding is influenced by our own unsharably specific set of circumstances and experiences.
And perhaps the point is that we can only be alone, that each man is his own universe to discover, that we are like lonely, self-imploding Gods making something out of nothing because we are bored.
WIDGETIZE
lokutus_prime # 19. January 2005, 08:53
"Occam's razor is a logical principle attributed to the mediaeval philosopher William of Occam (or Ockham). The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This principle is often called the principle of parsimony. It underlies all scientific modelling and theory building. It admonishes us to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one. In any given model, Occam's razor helps us to "shave off" those concepts, variables or constructs that are not really needed to explain the phenomenon. By doing that, developing the model will become much easier, and there is less chance of introducing inconsistencies, ambiguities and redundancies."
It alludes to "scientific modelling" but I would say it is also a rational approach to most questions.
Emily, I must end now, but I'll be back asap. I hope these few words of mine have contributed to your thoughts on these matters.
Peace,
lokutus
lokutus_prime # 19. January 2005, 08:53
Quentin S Crisp # 19. January 2005, 08:53
scott cumming # 19. January 2005, 08:53
you remind me of myself. thinking thinking thinking. stuck in one part of myself... the higher story of my body but not the higher intellectual.
the only times i've had what i call a brilliant thought were when i experienced a change of 'state'. on the level of formatory thinking it feels more like 'pinging' thought. it can be engaging and even fun to dance with the associative.
the other thought i have is that no amount of thinking can verify an axiom. experience is the coin of the realm in reality.
you raised a fascinating question.
Emily # 19. January 2005, 08:53
Scott (I_ArtMan), I think you are right when you say "experience is the coin of the realm in reality". Even in the simplest way of looking at it, experiences enrich our existence. It is through our "experience" of the world that we learn, and in turn establish its parameters. But I don't see the point, the Greater Point to it all. And that's what I said this afternoon, in conversation with someone who seems to have it all figured out. I keep getting told to transcend myself but I guess I just don't want to. I understand the principle of it, but I don't want to let go of myself. It seems like that will happen soon enough, when I'm dead. I just think that if there's any point at all in being me, then being me would have to be it.
So, there it is. My level of enlightenment laid bare for all to see and scorn. And this afternoon, drinking coffee, my eyes fill with tears twice to hear myself called an "animal", to feel my warm flesh humming with rich, red blood and know it's true. On the arm of the chair, the Dalai Lama's face pities me from a book jacket. Of course I'm an animal. That's just the problem, isn't it?
scott cumming # 19. January 2005, 08:53
Alas that we don't value the body as much as the mind.
i think that it's not so much a problem of transcending.
the kernel of the pithiest hindu ideas gives great importance to action.
chuang-tzu, the genius of the absurd,
said, "if it weren't for the body, there'd be no problem." this is a favorite quote of mine. it's exquisite as a shock to the head.
but think about it. without resistance transformation of being is impossible. no struggle, why live?
maybe we are here to do something.
your dissatisfaction should be nourished.
find out for yourself is the best suggestion
for those of us who need to examine our lives.
be sure i don't mean to analyze myself. there's no glimpse of mystery there.
but real observations can lead to understanding.
i have no faith either... i think faith is a gimmic.
you are alive that's the only miracle.
Emily # 19. January 2005, 08:53
So each man makes his own meaning. The End....?
See, something in me is not entirely prepared to accept this. The teacher's pet in me wants there to be a right answer, and I want to figure it out and raise my hand for Cosmic Recognition. That's ridiculous, I suppose. And even when I sense that the Gods are speaking to me, I can't help but think that I'm only having delusions of grandeur. So, I spin my wheels. Seems I'm stuck here in this gooey little spot in the Universe.
scott cumming # 19. January 2005, 08:53
our formatory habit is to categorize horizontally.
every realm of truth from science to pre-school is expressed and communicated on the same dreary model.
good or bad. a sliding and stupid scale which leads to arguement and separation.
the experiences of being opened by external chemistry and strange religions, the grand explosion of experimenting in the mid 20th century, caused our collective consciousness the mystical glimpses of vertical consciousness; out of which was born a whole new discrimination of the alternatives to simply living and dying; and a whole new generation of astutely critical minds and elegantly creative re-makers.
before that no-one dreamed of the potential of projecting the impossible onto the map of the future simply by the right wishing of strong minds.now it happens every day... we are about to jump into new dimensions which will change everything and bring in the golden age. but only if we... we the humans, aim high. not only aim high but exert ourselves unstintingly. only super efforts count. the cosmos only responds when the thrones of the gods get hot.
let's just pretend that we're not striving for recognition for selfish reasons, self-calming reasons which mist disolves every new dawn. then we can get down. get down to the job of being truly interested in experience, in sensation, in permanent transformation. lightness energy joy love. words we know the meaning of but can't experience.
I_ArtMan
Quentin S Crisp # 19. January 2005, 08:53
I was going post a comment on what I believe without having any proof of its truth. Unfortunately, I've had very little time to go into such depth, and my eyes are still playing up a bit. But I will try and state it all simply. Most of the people who answered that Edge question are scientists. Science, in my view, is actually dangerous, because of its claims to objectivity. I'll try to break this down simply.
There's a quote at the beginning of a book by Burroughs from a character called Hassan I Sabbah (not sure if I've spelt that right). The quote runs: "Nothing is True. Everything is permitted." Burroughs explains the significance of this quote by saying that it is important not to beleve that anything can be true. What you have to do is take a look at who wants you to believe what, who is controlling the illusions that in turn control our lives, and then ask yourself what their motives are.
My impression is this, most scientists are the type of people who, at school, did not like subjects such as English literature and so on, because there was no 'right answer'. They did not understand how you could possibly grade something or know what to do in such a circumstances. In the science subjects there were always right or wrong answers. It was easy for them to be right, and they liked being right. They liked the power this gave them, sensing in it a means of controlling lie and their environment. What I'm saying here is, objectivity is a means to power in science. In other words, behind so-called objectivity is ambition.
In order to maintain the power the objectivity gives them, scientists need to see everything in terms of right or wrong, what can be proved or can't be. This means that they have to focus exclusively on the quantitive aspects of existence and ignore the qualitative. In fact, to ensure that their power really lasts, they have to convince the whole world that there is no qualitative aspect to existence. This is why scientists are adamant that there is no soul. When they talk about there being no room for any soul in the body, they reveal precisely how primitive their own thought processes are, as if they are expected a sheeted figure to rise up vaporously when they cut open a cadaver. The quantitative aspect corresponds with the mass of the body. The qualitative aspect corresponds with the form. Mass and form. That's why scientists are so fond of looking through microscopes, and breaking things down - reductively - to their smallest particles. It's in order to ignore the form, the higher pattern. Science has a bottom up, rather than top down approach to analysing things. Define everything by its smallest particles. If we look, for instance, at a poem, we can see that the qualitative aspect is the mass of the ink on paper, and the neurons that it engages in the brain. The qualitative aspect is, first of all, the shape - where, precisely, can you get a hold of the shape? - and also the meaning. Let's start with a small one:
Old pond
A frog leaps
Sound of water
Where is the meaning of this poem? If you cut it into small pieces, would you find the meaning? The answer is no, of course. Yet to deny that there is a meaning, however valuable you think that meaning is, is to deny the obvious. But this denial of the obvious is precisely what science does. It is a pernicious way of thinking that erodes compassion and is resposible for our rape of the planet.
Objecitivy is now the new dogma. It is airtight - as long as you deny all things qualitative, where the soul resides - because it breaks everything down into what can be proved and what cannot, and this is precisely the realm where science has a monopoly. Ask youself this, Do we really want to live in a world where science's authority has become absolutely beyond challenge? Because that is the world we are heading for rapidly. We are almost there now. If I say that fundamentalists are dangerous, few people, except fundamentalists, would disagree. If I say that scientists are dangerous, suddenly I am a heretic and a crackpot - why? Because science has got so far with its hegemony of objectivity, which it guards jealously through being esoteric, so that no lay-person is qualified to tell a scientist what to do. But hear this - scientists are fundamentalists, too. They are fundamentalists of materialism.
It is good in some ways that so many of them are ready to confess to having beliefs that they cannot prove. But if you read what they say, most of them suggest that they will be able to prove them, and that they intend to.
Science has been useful to us, but I think that until it admits that it is self-limiting, and that, in essence, life is bigger than science, it has to be viewed as megolomaniac.
Emily # 19. January 2005, 08:53
Quentin S Crisp # 19. January 2005, 08:53
"If we look, for instance, at a poem, we can see that the qualitative aspect is the mass of the ink on paper, and the neurons that it engages in the brain."
That should, of course, be "the quantitative aspect".
baggeroli # 19. January 2005, 08:53
Any good scientist will tell you he (or she) 'knows' basically nothing about anything. That's the whole point. You just have some basic knowledge on some matters. If I just take a look at myself: I've been stuffing myself with all kinds of knowledge for years, just out of curiousity, and the more knowledge I gathered, the more I came to the conclusion I 'know' absolutely less than nothing. And that feeling surprisingly soothes me, it gives me a nice disattachment (is this an English word? maybe disassociation is better, although not quite what I mean) and certainly some peace of mind.
Any good scientist will tell you that there's no such thing as objectivity. It's simply impossible for human beings: total objectivity can only be reached if you've got no working brain, ergo if you're dead! If God exists, i hope she won't be objective either ;-)
Any good scientist will agree with you about the downsides of reducing matters to tiny little bits. If possible, a scientist would rather use logical deduction instead of logical induction... There's just one problem: mankind isn't smart enough to do just exactly that. The 'whole' is far too complicated for us so you're forced to start with the smaller, reduced particles. This is just a pragmatical choice a scientist has to make.
Then there's is the ancient problem: the sum of all elements (or particles) is less than the organism (or piece of art etc.) itself. This is a very interesting phenomenon and many debates have been held about it. You describe it as the quality of something. That's a very meaningful and interesting description. And although quality is vey subjective, any good scientist will be interested in this subjective problem. Btw: the poem you wrote is already a reduction in itself and I like it big time (I would leave out the A though).
The falsification principle: as long as you can't prove I'm wrong I consider it to be true (keyword: consider). Any good scientist knows there's no truth, even though something has been 'proven'. Truth is a temporary thing and influenced by a whole lot of strange forces (). The same apllies to 'proof': something is proven to be right but chances are, it will be proven wrong. ;-)
I agree with you on the ambition and power. I believe science is being abused to take over the (sometimes) suppressing role of religion in the way we look at things. Is this the fault of scientists or science itself? For some part: yes. Scientists aren't particular good in explaining that: science bears no truth, it just gives an impression of reality for today, it gives no answers but rises questions, it promises nothing, it proves not so many things if any, it's rather subjective and so on and so on.
For some part: no. It's being abused by all kinds of people with all kinds of (hidden) agenda's (hello there Mr. Burroughs): politicians, media, companies, me, you, scientists, santa and so on and so on.
The prime force of any good scientist is curiousity and nothing else. What other people do with the outcomes of scientific research is mainly other people's responsibility, I believe. Or can you blame Einstein or Planck for Hiroshima? Can you blame Newton for all ballistic missiles and whatever? Can you blame Watson and Crick for some poor mouse with an ear growing out of his back? For me, it's not clear yet but I tend to think not.
btw: I'm no scientist and I'm having a hard time to write in English so if I'm not all too clear, I apologize....
Quentin S Crisp # 19. January 2005, 08:53