Difference between revisions of "A historical introduction to the foundations of culture"

From Knowledge Federation
Jump to: navigation, search
m
m
 
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 8: Line 8:
 
</div>
 
</div>
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
−
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The real issue was not "reality"</h2></div>
−
<div class="col-md-7"><h2>The issue was never "objective reality"</h2>
+
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<p>The fact that motion is relative is elementary; we can place the coordinate system in any way we please. So why not place it right at the center of our beloved home planet—and let it move together with her?</p>  
 
<p>The fact that motion is relative is elementary; we can place the coordinate system in any way we please. So why not place it right at the center of our beloved home planet—and let it move together with her?</p>  
−
<p>The reason is that we would then not be able to <em>comprehend</em> the astrophysical world in the way we do now. The reason is that in such an order of things <em>science would not be possible</p>.  
+
<p>The reason is that we would then not be able to <em>comprehend</em> the astrophysical world in the way we do now. The reason is that in such an order of things <em>science would not be possible</em>.  
 
<p>It was, in other words, the empowerment of the human reason to comprehend the physical phenomena, that determined what "reality" ended up being—and not some more "objective" reason.</p>  
 
<p>It was, in other words, the empowerment of the human reason to comprehend the physical phenomena, that determined what "reality" ended up being—and not some more "objective" reason.</p>  
 
<p>The problem with this change of <em>foundation</em> was that so much of human culture—which was founded in <em>respect</em> for tradition, and its beliefs, values, rituals... that people were <em>socialized</em> to accept as "reality"—had lost its foundations! Notice that both Galilei and Socrates were tried for "impiety". Why be unselfish? Because God sent his own Son to teach us charity...</p>  
 
<p>The problem with this change of <em>foundation</em> was that so much of human culture—which was founded in <em>respect</em> for tradition, and its beliefs, values, rituals... that people were <em>socialized</em> to accept as "reality"—had lost its foundations! Notice that both Galilei and Socrates were tried for "impiety". Why be unselfish? Because God sent his own Son to teach us charity...</p>  
Line 19: Line 19:
 
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-6">
 
<div class="col-md-6">
−
<p>When Nietzsche proclaimed, famously, he did that in part to point to our new challenge, and responsibility—to <em>found</em> those various elements of culture, that relied on the existence of God, in this new epistemological order of things. </p>
+
<p>When Nietzsche proclaimed, famously, that "God is dead",  he did that in part to point to our new challenge, and responsibility—to <em>found</em> those various elements of culture, that relied on God's existence, in the modern epistemological order of things. </p>
 
<p>We did not listen.</p>  
 
<p>We did not listen.</p>  
−
<p>Perhaps we'll listen now?</p>  
+
<p>So here is a <em>new</em> way to understand the <em>holoscope</em>: It's a further step in the same direction—where the human reason is empowered to understand a new range of phenomena, and power their evolution—the <em>cultural</em> ones. The <em>holotopia</em> is what naturally follows.</p>  
 
</div>
 
</div>
−
<div class="col-md-3 round-images"> [[File:Nietzsche.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Friedrich Nietzsche]]</center></small></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3 round-images"> [[File:Nietzsche.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Friedrich Nietzsche]]</center></small>
−
 
 
−
</div> </div>
 
−
 
 
−
<!--
 
  
−
But our industries have been able to separate this emotion from its purposes. They created games that engage only "other psychological tendencies", so that the effort of attention that sustains a moral act is never experienced; which keep children's attention <em>away</em> from reality; which exercise no more than their thumbs and their rear ends; whose ethical message is that killing is fun; and which are so "immersive" that they make everything else – and school in particular – seem dull in comparison.</p>
+
</div> </div>
−
<p>What will prevent our young ones from virtually <em>living</em> in the virtual world? Success is there so much easier to experience. And even the ultimate failure can be erased by just pressing the restart button!</p>
 
−
<h3>It's a complex world</h3>
 
−
<p><em>For all we know</em>, we may have created a complex and dangerous world, which will demand of our next generation the presence of spirit that we ourselves haven't been able to muster.</p>
 
−
<p>We say "for all we know", because we <em>don't</em> really know. While some of our colleagues have done research and concluded that our civilization may just barely make it, provided we make changes promptly, the rest of us continue to live and work just as we did before. Notice that we are not saying that our civilization is in trouble; others have said that. All <em>we</em> need in order to motivate our initiative follows from what we've just said. And it's anyhow obvious – it's that <em>we do not know</em> what our situation is and what we need to do; because <em>the way in which we handle knowledge is keeping us from knowing</em>.</p>
 
−
<p>And because also <em>our</em> attention has been mishandled.</p>
 
−
<h3>The economy of attention</h3>
 
−
<p>The journalists are not to be blamed. They are just trying to make ends meet in a competitive world.</p>
 
−
<p>Our friends who innovate in journalism told us that there's just about one business model left to the journalists, as a way to compete with abundant free information. They call it "attention economy", but it's not what you might think. The journalists are not economizing with our attention as a resource, by directing it where it is most needed. On the contrary – the attention economy means attracting people's attention <em>by whatever means may still be available</em>, and selling it – as a commodity, measured as the number of thousands of readers or viewers – to the advertisers.</p>
 
−
<p>And we don't need to tell you that it's those advertisers – that half-a-trillion-dollars-a-year global industry that combines state-of-the-art science with state-of-the-art communication design – that are now in charge of <em>everyone's</em> character! If they do their job right, then "the effort of attention by which we hold fast to an idea" ("do I really need this?") will yield to "the other psychological tendencies that are there" ("this looks attractive – let's have it!"). But don't blame the advertisers; this just happens to be <em>their</em> way to make a living in a competitive world.</p></div>
 
−
</div>
 
−
-----
 
−
<div class="row">
 
−
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Pleasure is a resource</h2></div>
 
−
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Pleasure has a purpose</h3>
 
−
<p>Neither the parents are to be blamed.</p>
 
−
<p>We parents, of course, only wish our children our best. We want them to be happy! The trouble is that we believe (because we've been <em>socialized</em> to believe) that happiness means doing what feels attractive at the moment. How can we deny our children those games, when they might be the <em>only</em> thing that still interests them?</p>
 
−
<p>The sensation that something is attractive or pleasant too has a role in the larger scheme of things. It's what the nature created to make us do what is good for us. But our industries have been able to separate that too from its purpose! Think, in the manner of a metaphor, about white sugar: the pleasurable substance has been extracted from the nutritious rest. We can now fool nature; we can add sugar (physically, and metaphorically) to virtually anything. We can make <em>anything</em> taste attractive!</p>
 
−
<p>But there's a hidden cost. (<em>Two</em> hidden costs, to be exact. We let you discover the other one on your own.)</p>
 
−
</div>
 
−
</div>
 
−
<div class="row">
 
−
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
−
<div class="col-md-6">
 
−
<h3>The economy of pleasure</h3>
 
−
<p>Around the time when William James was writing the above lines, Friedrich Nietzsche was looking at the course modernity was taking and jotting down notes:</p>
 
−
<blockquote><p>Sensibility immensely more irritable; the abundance of disparate impressions greater than ever; cosmopolitanism in food, literatures, newspapers, forms, tastes, even landscapes. The tempo of this influx prestissimo; the impressions erase each other; one instinctively resists taking in anything, taking anything deeply, to “digest” anything; a weakening of the power to digest results from this. A kind of adaptation to this flood of impressions takes place: men unlearn spontaneous action, they merely react to stimuli from outside. They spend their strength partly in assimilating things, partly in defense, partly in opposition. Profound weakening of spontaneity: The historian, critic, analyst, interpreter, the observer, the collector, the reader-all of them reactive talents-all science!</p>
 
−
<p>Artificial change of one’s nature into a “mirror”; interested but, as it were, merely epidermically interested; a coolness on principle, a balance, a fixed low temperature closely underneath the thin surface on which warmth, movement, “tempest,” and the play of waves are encountered.“</p>
 
−
<p>Opposition of external mobility and a certain deep heaviness and weariness.“</p></blockquote>
 
−
</div>
 
−
<div class="col-md-3 round-images"> [[File:Nietzsche.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Friedrich Nietzsche]]</center></small></div>
 
−
</div>
 
−
<div class="row">
 
−
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
−
<div class="col-md-7">
 
−
<p>Interesting to observe that this was written before the radio, the TV, the worldwide travel, the computer and the mobile phone.</p>
 
−
<p>Imagine if this is really true! Imagine if we've been "pursuing happiness" by seeking stimulation – and sacrificing our very <em>ability</em> to feel!</p>
 
−
<p>We think about Nietzsche when we hear some of the music that young people listen to. It reminded us of doleful howls of some youngsters whose subtlety of feeling has been lost – created in an ardent effort to stimulate the overstimulated senses of their brethren <em>even</em> a bit further.</p>
 
−
</div>
 
−
</div>
 
−
-----
 
−
<div class="row">
 
−
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Knowledge too is a resource</h2></div>
 
−
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>We've done one thing right</h3>
 
−
<p>In the midst of all systemic mishaps, one thing has been done right – the academic tenure. And the corresponding ethos of academic freedom.</p>
 
−
<p>We now have a global army, of people who have been selected and specially educated and publicly sponsored to think deeply and freely. Its task is to protect us from ignorance; to create  knowledge of highest standards, and make sure it prevails.</p>
 
−
<p>Is this army still trained and organized as it might empower it to fulfill its vitally important task – <em>in this age</em>? </p>
 
−
<p>Max Weber – a [[giants|<em>giant</em>]] of sociology – observed that the greatest progress in the art of warfare resulted from improvements in the social organization of warriors. Could it be similar also in our strife with ignorance?</p>
 

Latest revision as of 08:43, 9 May 2020

A historical introduction to the foundations of culture

Movement is relative

When Galileo issued his most celebrated claim, eppur si muove (and yet it moves), while in house arrest, we today might be tempted to say that he was just voicing an "objective" truth, how the things "really were, in reality". This matter, however, can be seen in more than way. Faithful to our axiom (that "knowledge must be federated"), we now present an angle that, from our contemporary point of view, might easily appear sacrilegious, and make a case for (what might have been) the view of Galileo's persecutors; and also the ones of Socrates. While there can be no doubt that both were at least in part defending their contemporary power structures, and their own positions in it, there is more to this story than meets the eye.

Galilei.jpg
Galileo Galilei

The real issue was not "reality"

The fact that motion is relative is elementary; we can place the coordinate system in any way we please. So why not place it right at the center of our beloved home planet—and let it move together with her?

The reason is that we would then not be able to comprehend the astrophysical world in the way we do now. The reason is that in such an order of things science would not be possible. <p>It was, in other words, the empowerment of the human reason to comprehend the physical phenomena, that determined what "reality" ended up being—and not some more "objective" reason.

The problem with this change of foundation was that so much of human culture—which was founded in respect for tradition, and its beliefs, values, rituals... that people were socialized to accept as "reality"—had lost its foundations! Notice that both Galilei and Socrates were tried for "impiety". Why be unselfish? Because God sent his own Son to teach us charity...

When Nietzsche proclaimed, famously, that "God is dead", he did that in part to point to our new challenge, and responsibility—to found those various elements of culture, that relied on God's existence, in the modern epistemological order of things.

We did not listen.

So here is a new way to understand the holoscope: It's a further step in the same direction—where the human reason is empowered to understand a new range of phenomena, and power their evolution—the cultural ones. The holotopia is what naturally follows.

Nietzsche.jpg
Friedrich Nietzsche
Retrieved from "http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/index.php?title=A_historical_introduction_to_the_foundations_of_culture&oldid=4855"