Clunky fragmentation of society and the universes of knowledge and belief

Sustaining the Quest for Sustainable Answers on COVID-19 (Part #2)

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | Refs ]

The fragmentation of society, and of the disciplines, has long been deplored -- to little avail. The possibility of any form of "unity" could well be recognized as an extreme form of naive optimism. Even the possibility of consensus in that regard could be recognized as delusional (The Consensus Delusion: mysterious attractor undermining global civilization as currently imagined, 2011).

There is therefore a case for noting the degree to which the vast array of "things" could be compared with clunky "containers" -- possibly even with a degree of organization comparable with that of a refuse dump, whatever effort is made for its "organization" by those in inhabiting that context. However, just as with any waste dump, a degree of motivation and care enables various "things" to be put together so that something useful "works". The result may even be subject to intellectual copyright to restrict the use of the assemblage by others. Do the "systems" on which society is so dependent reflect a higher degree of organization? Are they inherently vulnerable -- as crises, like the COVID-19 pandemic, tend to render only too evident?

Given the creativity which is so obviously associated with any viable assemblage, could this be more fruitfully recognized as "coagulating" into the larger "thing" thereby created? How is that creative potential then to be recognized once the "thing" exists? The competitive processes associated with intellectual copyright are then usefully to be understood as a deep commitment to divisiveness. People can "buy into" the result if they so choose, committing their resources as required. The context may also stimulate some to design the next "killer app" with the possibility of holding the world to ransom and making a fortune.

It would seem that there is the possibility of a fundamental choice. One can indeed "buy into" the clunky context -- as can be seen by the attitude of many desperately endeavouring to make a living from a waste dump. So framed, anyone can become a "part" and can thereby "participate" in society. Identity is then framed by the part of society with which one identifies.

Rather than understanding the alternative as being "apart", it would seem that there is the possibility of identifying with a "wave" -- however this might then be understood. There is a degree of paradox to the choice of this alternative.

As with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, there are conditions under which one indulge in the potentially illusory recognition that one is a "part". There are others under which one can indulge in the recognition that one is a "wave" -- whether or not this merits consideration as being equally illusory. The shift from one cognitive framework to the other might be usefully compared to "donning" one form of clothing and "doffing" another. One sense of "habit", as worn by monks, is suggestive of this understanding (Antonio T. De Nicolas, Habits of Mind: an introduction to the philosophy of education, 1999).

Fundamental physics has extensively explored the choice of one alternative or the other -- framed by the measuring process of the observer. Here the emphasis is however on an understanding of existential choice. Far less evident is how it is possible to choose between such extreme alternatives -- and whether in fact this is a skill which some people (if not many) already possess to some degree.

Under what conditions do people identify with "parts" -- as with possessions which affirm their status in their own eyes, or in the eyes of others? The example of clothing with a designer label is indicative. The switch to identification with a wave is perhaps most evident in responding to the beat of music, especially in dance. The difficulty is clearly that society is organized around the articulation into "parts" with which people are variously obliged to identify. The scope for identification with a "wave" is limited -- especially when the wave has been orchestrated as part of a marketing initiative of some kind.

Arguably the sense of freeedom is associated with the ability to choose with what to identify but more particularly with the possibility of not identifying with a "thing" that has been organized by another. This frames the possibility of a cognitive form of speciation into those who identify primarily with the parts or with the waves -- and potentially those who alternate between them. This implies the possibility of  as a matter of choice a fundamental shift in identity Homo conjugens / undulans -- believer / unbeliever

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | Refs ]