A theory for the very large?

You cannot start a paragraph with, "I'm no philosophy major..." without somehow implying that you intend to assert that you do indeed have some knowledge of philosophy. While the subject of this blog (as many of mine will be) is philosophical in nature, I am ultimately completely aware of my extreme ignorance of all general philosophical premises which have been posited throughout the course of human history. So... my ignorance is submitted as an initial assumption for this course of thought.

I am relatively aware (as most are) of the philosophies of Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Kant and others whose general ideas certainly recognize the limits of human thought and our place in nature. But that said, the average (amateur) person who seeks to study a very general understanding of philosophy will no doubt, at some point, realize how the vast majority of ideas and premises seem to single out the human mind as something beyond or above the natural world. This isn't some expression that we are somehow supernatural at all. But instead, that the human capability of understanding reason, self-awareness, morality, etc... is somehow unique to the natural world. And on the surface level this may appear true. Certainly, we do not believe that most animals and plants have complex notions of freedom, or the will in general.

And yet, lately I am reminded just how much we really are a part of the natural world, and how even our thought processes are (in many ways) dictated by the very laws of the natural world. For example, I recently posited that perhaps our notions of the dialectic were not all that realistic. That instead, our social evolution is not predicated by a continually perfected process, but instead by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

And tonight, again I find a fascinating link to theories (or laws) of the natural world. It has occurred to me that when it comes to questions concerning my own subjective actions, I really have very few questions any more. How should I act? Is this wrong? What does that mean? Etc... Certainly it was a painful effort to get there, but I can confidently say I have no mysteries about the nature of my own personal behavior. However, when I consider problems of society, I find many questions which I cannot so "easily" answer. That is to say I cannot state that "this theory" or "that theory" should conclusively answer the problem. Subjects like, abortion, capital punishment, racism, ethics, etc.... So why is it the rules which govern the self, cannot answer the problems of society? Sure...you can rationalize this one quite easily. "Everyone is different." But that isn't good enough for me.

So, once again just a little digging into the world of physics led me to something interesting. There seems to be 2 general theories which govern the natural world. From these 2 theories, all other laws of nature are derived. The first is the Theory of General Relativity (the theory of the very large) and the second is the Theory of Quantum Mechanics (the theory of the very small). What physicist have discovered (not recently) is that at incredibly small sizes, the theories of relativity do not apply - the very laws of space and time break down. And it is here that you must apply quantum mechanics in order to understand the behavior of the objects.

I couldn't begin to understand these theories. But it certainly opens up an interesting comparison to our own behavior. At the personal level, for the individual, there may very well be a general theory which can be used to govern the behavior of that person. But when you begin to look at a society, suddenly those rules begin to break down and you require a new theory - a theory of the very large.

I'm not suggesting that these theories do not exist. Deontology, consequentialism, hell...even all of religion in general are attempts at theories for the very large. "How does one act/behave with respect to all humanity." But here is the kicker.... Is there one theory which, like Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, can answer all problems laid before it. (Caveat: Einstein's theory is still just a theory and there are competing theories which may still be proven to be more accurate or not.) The answer is a resounding, "Yes!". Which one? The answer, again resoundingly, "Beats Me!". But I have a theory.

Then again, I could be completely wrong...

Organized Religion

Living in the Bible Belt South, it's impossible to go very long without being asked, "Where do you go to church." Undoubtedly I'd be asked much more if I had more social contact than I do. And obviously, the biggest gripe I have is that when people find out you do not attend church, it is beyond their comprehension that you may actually be "religious". Instead you are labeled - most often as a non-believer. But don't worry - this post isn't about expounding my beliefs. It's about the dangers, the problems I see with organized religion - the "church" concept in particular.

Short back story: My wife goes to church and has a few friends that she has met as a result. One of these friends is a 28 year old woman who married one of her high school teachers (he is now in his 50's). She is not working, but is going to school to get a degree. They have three children, one of which has a disability and not expected to live many more years; she requires a lot of attention and special care. This woman has been struggling with her marriage for a few years now, but it is quickly coming to a boil. She just recently had a major surgery which has her in a wheel chair and unable to lift more than 7 pounds. Her husband has decided to drive to Atlanta every weekend to act in plays - for free. And he has now left her wheel chair bound to take care of 3 kids on her own.

My wife, and several other friends from church, are helping this young woman out. And she deserves every bit of help she can get. So you might be quick to point out - that without her church friends she would not have this help. You'd be right, and I will come back to that point.

My problem is that this woman actually believes that she is not "allowed" to divorce her husband. Apparently he has not been unfaithful or physically abused her. And some of her church "friends" have gone so far as to tell her, "God never said you were meant to be happy" - implying that she has no grounds for which to divorce this piece of shit husband. It doesn't take a Rocket Surgeon to see the problem here. It is this exact mentality that keeps me from ever going to church. I would never agree with anyone who thinks God expects us to suffer like this - especially for the sake of a 'marriage'. I've got news for you - that marriage is over; the only thing left is a legal document and God didn't write that.

I've said it before - Religion has 2 major purposes: 1) Rationalize our existence and 2) Provide an objective basis for morality. But organized religion seeks to do more. It seeks to dictate morality and beliefs. But to me - Organized Religion has only one value and that is Social. And in that aspect it is no different than Shriner's, or the Moose Club, etc... It provides a way for people of relatively common beliefs to "congregate" and socialize. For those who see value in that and enjoy it - I say more power to you...Church is great for that. But the day you let it interfere with what you know is right - you deserve the pain you cause.

There is only one unpardonable sin - and that ain't divorce.

Then again, I could be completely wrong.

What is the "epitome of mediocrity"?

A few months ago, I posted a comment on FaceBook - which was in fact more of a hypothesis for the thoughts I plan to lay out in today's blog. The thesis basically stated... Generally, I have always been a proponent of the Hegelian Dialectic. And why not? It's a perfectly sound idea that most people would agree with. The current state (status quo) is your Thesis. As this Thesis is imperfect, over time an Anti-Thesis forms to counter balance the problems in the Thesis. Inevitably, these 2 will clash and the result will be the Synthesis. This Synthesis becomes the new Thesis, and the cycle repeats. In the business world (and I am sure in other worlds as well) this is referred to as Continual Process Improvement (CPI). Regardless of Toyota's problems, their CPI practises have been leading industry standards for decades - and not surprisingly have caused most businesses to incorporate such measures. (Always look for ways to improve the status quo.)

But how do you measure success? In the business world, it's pretty easy. Did the Synthesis result in more profit? But when you begin to apply this to your personal life, and even more so to a Society, it becomes more difficult. Are you "happier" because of the changes you made? Can you measure the increased happiness? Was the Return on Investment (ROI) worth the change? Is a social change better just because more people are happy?

So in the end - the problem with the dialectic (for me) is the definition of "better" or for that matter - "perfection" (since that is always the ultimate goal of any dialectic system - just like moving toward the End Zone 1/2 the total distance each time [hint: you will never reach the goal]). And upon further investigation, I stumbled on the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Which basically states that all things move toward a state of equilibrium. Put an ice cold glass of water in a room, and it will warm to "room-temperature." I put that in quotes because the reality is, the "room-temperature" will actually decrease because of the ice cold water that was introduced in the system. In a sufficiently large enough system, this change is imperceptible (and of course we have variables such as heating/air which combats any effect the water may have had).


Examining life today, I see more "movement toward equilibrium" than I do any "continual process improvement". Most laws and social demonstrations are aimed at appeasement. But it is important that this be read NOT as a criticism. Like the Second Law of Thermodynamics itself, you cannot criticize the process; it is defined by the natural order. So, by this logic, society is moving toward equilibrium, blandness......mediocrity. And whether we agree with it or not, without external forces to intervene (I'll discuss these another time), this will be the course of mankind.

Zarathustra asked, "Man is something which shall be surpassed. What have you done to surpass him?" Fairly spoken from one of the founders of the Existentialist movement. But I submit, that as a creature of the natural world, we are bound more by the laws of nature than our self-prescribed philosophical ideals.

Go forth and be different. Go forth and be that ice cold glass of water. But you too will melt away, and all that shall be left will be a colorless puddle in a huge ocean....a huge, perfect ocean.

Then again, I could be completely wrong...

Complacency

Well, as this is my very first blog I thought I would start with a subject that is a bit ironic. It's all about the role of complacency with respect to personal and social development. It is a subject which has returned to my thoughts on numerous occasions lately.

I believe we all understand (to one degree or another) the negative conotations of complacency. Is it true that we have become complacent about the war? Sure. Is it true that we have become complacent about straving kids in thrid world nations? Sure. What about those living in our own country? You bet. But what does that really mean?? What am I supposed to do about it? Consider for a moment what your life may be like if you could really keep yourself from becoming complacent of all the ills of the earth - a being of pure empathy. You would be wholly consumed in your grief, or your amazement. True - this is no revelation. And it certainly isn't an excuse for our inaction. But I believe this perspective should keep us from looking with disdain on others who do not seem to share our "passions". (Passion here defined as those unique aspects in life which are seemingly immune to complacency - more to come on that.)

I wear a Vietnam MIA/POW bracelet on my right arm. I put it on when I was in 10th grade - and it's been off my wrist approximately twice since then (roughly 20 years). When asked why I wore it (still) I used to answer that it reminded me of the consequences of war. But I was fooling myself. I did't walk around looking at my wrist in deep contemplation of the tragedies of Vietnam; most days I couldn't have told you the guy's name imprinted on the bracelet. I still wear it today, but for a different reason. I wear it to remind me of how we all become complacent of those things we see every day and how important it is that we have this ability.

Complacency has its benefits. We generally refer to it as "acceptance." But it is complacency none-the-less. I spent 5 weeks in Europe. And during that trip I saw such beauties and wonders I could never have dreamed of. Standing in St. Peter's Cathedral with the sun shining down through the dome on the tomb of St. Peter is something words just cannot describe. And the peace and tranquility of traveling down the Rhine River is breathtaking (ironic?). And it struck me that surely life must be so much better in these places...Well of course you know that isn't true. Why? Because these people have become complacent of their surroundings; it's the only thing that allows them to carry out normal every day life.

But I believe complacency has an even greater benefit. I believe it is the single most important factor in the develoment of human knowledge. Consider the definition I provided for "passion". Hobbies are just one example of this - but you could just as easily look at astronomers who grew up looking at the stars and dreamed of being astronomers or even astronauts. For each of us, there are things we just cannot get enough of. It would seem that for these "passions" complacencny has no hold; we are always thinking about them and we always want more. But it is here that I believe complacency plays its most vital role. Complacency is what allows us to further our knowledge and continue to learn more. Imagine if Einstein had been content to learn about algebra and never went on to study physics. You can call it acceptance - but at the end of the day, it is your ability to stop being amazed and continually move forward ever looking for that next more amazing thing that drives you to learn more. It is in our nature to never be sated.

And this concept should not be over-looked easily. How many e-mails will you get over the course of a year showing you the innocence of a child becasue they take things at face-value; or how cunning they seem because they can see through the stuff we take for granted? We are humored to see human development at its best - the mind free of its complacency in the every day.

Then again, I could be completely wrong...