Not surprisingly, post-modern thought and science find themselves at a crossroads of opposition. The course of deconstructive analytics has created nuanced views of experience, calling into question the nature of explicit fact. It has succeeded in identifying the tacit content of experience and reconstructing a view of reality where experience and perception are functions of one another. It is fair to say that post-modern thought has created a tautological explanation of existence, perception, and fact. In other words, when one looks in the mirror, one sees what he has learned to see. When one considers the word "blue", its meaning is both highly subjective and completely personal, based on the conditions of one's experience of "blue". Meanwhile, science (specifically physics) presses forward in search of a unifying theory of matter, seeking to quantify the distance between probabilistic events (particle physics) and cosmic motion (relativity). It stands on the precipice of defining the precise content of a moment, and a deeper understanding of the nature and role of time.
To that end, in an increasingly complex world, we are faced with theoretical and observable evidence from all directions that historical conceptions of "facts" are under assault. The course of thought has lead us to an acceptance that my "blue" is often not "blue" at all, and the course of science explains that the most elementary constituents of existence often have no definite location. Despite their different approaches and the subtle disagreements amongst conclusions, these two modes of thought do offer a couple areas of common ground: 1. Perception of a moment is enough to change the content of a moment; 2. Individual perception is not replicable or universal.
With the nature of fact thrown into such controversy, we are left to re-assess the role and power of perception. While we have long-ago accepted that the human experience of sense (taste, touch, smell, hearing, sight - henceforth, the Objective Senses) lacks the capacity to perceive the entirety of the universe, we have yet to consider that this list of senses could be amended. The course of science has been to expand the capability of the Objective Senses (particularly sight and hearing) to allow humans to observe the universe beyond their biological limitations (IE microscopes, SONAR, and particle accelerators). These technological and scientific achievements do not address a more fundamental question: what is the relationship between observation and fact? Perhaps it can be more basically expressed as: what is the relationship between the past and the future?* Thus, I propose a re-evaluation of the Objective Senses as the sole determinants of fact, and posit that Ideas (as the placeholders of experience) are a credible, tangible, and necessary constituent of perception and fact.
To be continued ...
* Scientific methodology relies on the assumption that the observed "Laws of Nature" persist without regard to time. For example, we have observed certain patterns in the motion of objects in relation to the forces that act upon them (IE if you toss a ball in the air, it will follow a certain path before ultimately coming to rest on the ground), and from that deduce that these patterns will always obtain. In the example, we may all be willing to accept that the theories of motion will not cataclymically change tomorrow; however, this does not address the central question, and it also raises questions on which scientists now effort (including research into the particles that cause forces, most notably the graviton which exists only in theory, yet to be observed). Namely, how can science establish certain laws and theories as absolutes (on the basis of having observed them) when it does not know exactly what the conditions are that cause these theories to exist? How can it adhere so strongly to the need for evidence to support conclusions, yet advance conclusions for which there is no evidence (IE that the next time I throw a ball, it will adhere to the "Laws of Motion" or that in 150 million years the "Laws of Motion" as they exist today will still be applicable)? We can explain gravity in terms of evidence, however we can not explain WHY gravity happens, or what conditions may cause the effects of gravity to change (this is important because cosmology necessitates that the force of gravity changes - again, this has only been observed in theory). Thus, science is a sort of objective history of matter (what did what to what, when, and for how long), but within its theoretical framework, it relies on the "faith" of its adherents to justify extending those explanations into the future.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Of the people, By the People, For the People? I think not...
The process of selecting the next President of the United States is now underway, and in a few months it will begin with major party primaries. I tend to eschew the major parties, as each has daunting relative weaknesses and have (in the last 20 years) acted more as vehicles for corporate interests, rather than the good of their constituencies. This lead me to consider the standing of the American doctrine of Government Of the People, By the People, For the People.
Financial estimates for a successful 2008 Election Campaign now exceed $100 Million. Similarly, members of Congress as well as state legislators and governors must raise significantly more money than the average American earns in a lifetime to even consider political campaigning. The monetary demands of candidacy have made it nearly impossible for any but the wealthy and well-connected to consider holding office: a far departure from the ideal of Government Of the People.
As a result, the major political parties have become multi-billion dollar political machines, with candidates acting as high-priced executives on behalf of the long list of contributors to their political causes. Special interest money and lobbyist groups now occupy unique positions of power in the political process, often able to speak in a louder and more economically persuasive voice than the average American. The recent Jack Abramoff lobbyist/payola scandal shows just how corrupt this system can be and has been. While in concept special interest groups provide an opportunity for concerned Americans to voice their opinion as a bloc, these groups have come to look very much like the parties they lobby: well-funded, big money political machines, and what has been lost in all of this are the concerns and activism of the constituency. Certainly this is an unacceptable departure from the ideal of Government By the People.
And what are the results of these trends in our political system? Despite the continued increases in economic indicators, the rise in our international power (though this is being checked somewhat with currency devaluation), the quality of life for the "average" American continues on the decline. The poverty rate has been on a steady rise since the 90s, and income inequality continues to be a concern. Most notably, compensation for the top 5% of the population continues to escalate to unprecendented levels. An example of this is provided by United Health (the nation's largest health insurer), whose CEO has netted more than a billion dollars since 2000, while record numbers of Americans (myself included, along with 46 million others) can't afford health coverage. What is occurring is an effectual redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich, and we can see those policies with only a cursory glance at the current administration. Thus, though Americans still live "better" than most of the world, they don't live as well as they could, primarily so that a privileged few can amass inordinate wealth. I assert that regardless of whether our government is still truly a representative democracy, it is the furthest from attaining the ideal of Government For the People.
While the effects of these transformations of liberal democracy are wide (political apathy, feelings of disenfranchisement, existence of a welfare class, widening class gaps, etc.), it is not doomsday. Though America may not at this moment live up to its ideals, it has not foresaken them. As such, the concerted effort of individuals CAN make a difference.
Most notably, Americans must once again utilize their most basic unit of political power: the right to vote. Voting has two basic impacts (among many): 1. Influences the outcome of elections (duh) - if you vote, your political voice can be heard in selecting the candidate(s) you believe best represent your interests and the interests of America; 2. Capturing the attention of political entities - in the modern age, political candidates have access to a large wealth of information, including voting demographics and issues and stances that each demographic prioritizes. President Bush was able to get elected simply by appealing to a very narrow demographic: Midwestern and Southern protestant parents. Even in 2004, when he garnered more than 50% of the popular vote, nearly 75% of the voting age populace of the US did NOT vote for the man who became President. When you exercise your right to vote, you also send the clear message that your opinion must be considered by candidates, and you affect the course of future political disucssion.
Despite the promise of free elections and the lofty ideals of democracy, the facts are that American political participation lags noticeably behind the rest of the free world (most notably Western Europe and Japan). To blame our governmental shortcomings only on corrupt politicians and incompetent leaders is irresponsible, when We the People aren't doing our part. So, I encourage everyone to take a little time (just an hour or two in the course of several months) to learn a little about an issue or two that matters, and then translate that into a vote. One vote may or may not be the difference in the election, but your one voice is too precious to silence and ignore.
With that in mind, there are some candidates from the major parties taking strong and aggressive stands on important issues and encouraging Americans to participate in their government. One such candidate is Barack Obama (Democratic Junior Senator-Illinois) who recently participated in a "town hall" meeting that webcast live on Myspace and was rebroadcasted on MTV. MTV.com has posted these videos (21 4-5 minute conversations on different topics from the Senator). Below is a link to those videos, where you can learn more about Sen. Obama and his ideas for America. In the video linked, he explains a core principle: whether you agree with him or not, it's important to be part of the process. Thank you for your time reading this, and I'll see you at the polls!
Barack Obama in Iowa
Financial estimates for a successful 2008 Election Campaign now exceed $100 Million. Similarly, members of Congress as well as state legislators and governors must raise significantly more money than the average American earns in a lifetime to even consider political campaigning. The monetary demands of candidacy have made it nearly impossible for any but the wealthy and well-connected to consider holding office: a far departure from the ideal of Government Of the People.
As a result, the major political parties have become multi-billion dollar political machines, with candidates acting as high-priced executives on behalf of the long list of contributors to their political causes. Special interest money and lobbyist groups now occupy unique positions of power in the political process, often able to speak in a louder and more economically persuasive voice than the average American. The recent Jack Abramoff lobbyist/payola scandal shows just how corrupt this system can be and has been. While in concept special interest groups provide an opportunity for concerned Americans to voice their opinion as a bloc, these groups have come to look very much like the parties they lobby: well-funded, big money political machines, and what has been lost in all of this are the concerns and activism of the constituency. Certainly this is an unacceptable departure from the ideal of Government By the People.
And what are the results of these trends in our political system? Despite the continued increases in economic indicators, the rise in our international power (though this is being checked somewhat with currency devaluation), the quality of life for the "average" American continues on the decline. The poverty rate has been on a steady rise since the 90s, and income inequality continues to be a concern. Most notably, compensation for the top 5% of the population continues to escalate to unprecendented levels. An example of this is provided by United Health (the nation's largest health insurer), whose CEO has netted more than a billion dollars since 2000, while record numbers of Americans (myself included, along with 46 million others) can't afford health coverage. What is occurring is an effectual redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich, and we can see those policies with only a cursory glance at the current administration. Thus, though Americans still live "better" than most of the world, they don't live as well as they could, primarily so that a privileged few can amass inordinate wealth. I assert that regardless of whether our government is still truly a representative democracy, it is the furthest from attaining the ideal of Government For the People.
While the effects of these transformations of liberal democracy are wide (political apathy, feelings of disenfranchisement, existence of a welfare class, widening class gaps, etc.), it is not doomsday. Though America may not at this moment live up to its ideals, it has not foresaken them. As such, the concerted effort of individuals CAN make a difference.
Most notably, Americans must once again utilize their most basic unit of political power: the right to vote. Voting has two basic impacts (among many): 1. Influences the outcome of elections (duh) - if you vote, your political voice can be heard in selecting the candidate(s) you believe best represent your interests and the interests of America; 2. Capturing the attention of political entities - in the modern age, political candidates have access to a large wealth of information, including voting demographics and issues and stances that each demographic prioritizes. President Bush was able to get elected simply by appealing to a very narrow demographic: Midwestern and Southern protestant parents. Even in 2004, when he garnered more than 50% of the popular vote, nearly 75% of the voting age populace of the US did NOT vote for the man who became President. When you exercise your right to vote, you also send the clear message that your opinion must be considered by candidates, and you affect the course of future political disucssion.
Despite the promise of free elections and the lofty ideals of democracy, the facts are that American political participation lags noticeably behind the rest of the free world (most notably Western Europe and Japan). To blame our governmental shortcomings only on corrupt politicians and incompetent leaders is irresponsible, when We the People aren't doing our part. So, I encourage everyone to take a little time (just an hour or two in the course of several months) to learn a little about an issue or two that matters, and then translate that into a vote. One vote may or may not be the difference in the election, but your one voice is too precious to silence and ignore.
With that in mind, there are some candidates from the major parties taking strong and aggressive stands on important issues and encouraging Americans to participate in their government. One such candidate is Barack Obama (Democratic Junior Senator-Illinois) who recently participated in a "town hall" meeting that webcast live on Myspace and was rebroadcasted on MTV. MTV.com has posted these videos (21 4-5 minute conversations on different topics from the Senator). Below is a link to those videos, where you can learn more about Sen. Obama and his ideas for America. In the video linked, he explains a core principle: whether you agree with him or not, it's important to be part of the process. Thank you for your time reading this, and I'll see you at the polls!
Barack Obama in Iowa
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)