Science as a Way of Knowing

Science is a way of knowing.  Because it is successful as a predictive accounting of the natural world it has enormous power.  It is important for the public to have a reasonably accurate understanding of science as a discipline in order to maintain independent thought and understanding when science is discussed in the public arena.  Most non-scientists are exposed to science through the media, through science writers or scientists themselves. Complex ideas are meant to be communicated in a way that the average person can understand. The media has largely failed in their attempts to do this.  Is it possible to communicate complex ideas to the general public? How can this be done?

Science is a way of knowing but it is not the only way of knowing.  The Latins distinguished between Scientia or knowledge and Sapientia or wisdom. Before that Aristotle divided Philosophy, 'the love of wisdom' into Theoria or metaphysical, pure knowledge and Proneia or practical, empirical knowledge. Before Aristotle, Socrates’ effort to find a wiser man than himself led him to question politicians, then artists and then craftsmen (techne). He expected them all to be able to explain their practical everyday practices (proneia) based on abstract principles or pure reason (theoria) but no one could do it. Of this lot the craftsmen were the best but claimed more than they knew, the artists were not as good because their testimony was neither repeatable nor consistent, and the politicians were the worst. This is unfortunate, because politicians attempt the most good for society based on the least theoria or proneia compared to an artist or an artisan.  The difficulties surrounding what any one of us means when we talk about knowledge continue to the present day.

Anytime a substantive, sustained discussion on almost any topic proceeds, the participants will come to a place where differences of opinion will surface.  If the discussion is to continue, the participants, in order to defend an opinion, will make an appeal to the “truth”, or to certain “facts” pertaining to the subject under discussion.  At this point the discussion may end in a simple stalemate: “we believe different things about what truth is, or we differ about the veracity of the facts being presented.” If the discussion is to continue, then certain clarifications must be made. Where the discussion pertains to metaphysical matters, such as “is there a God?” or even “what qualities are we discussing when we are talking about God?” I will refer to such matters as big T or “Truth” statements.  In this sense I am taking at face value the idea that some things exist, without making the necessary, albeit circular, epistemological arguments to support that there is a “thisness”, an “itness” or “quidditas” to mere existence.  And where the discussion pertains to matters that exist within space and time, these four familiar dimensions of our (perhaps) limited apprehension, and which can be described with various amounts of precision through certain methodologies, depending on what particular type of events they are (historical, psychological, scientific, etc.) I will simply refer to these matters as small f “facts”.

My reason for this particular clarification between Truth and facts rests on a distinction between what is knowable and what is not knowable.  And this distinction itself rests upon methodologies, the 21st century proneia of Aristotle.  If there is Truth outside our four-dimensional apprehension by what method shall it be perceived?  Any argument that posits theoretical physics or any other scientific scheme to counter this claim, for instance by theorizing about numbers of dimensions, or that nothing is not actually nothing, but is something, (as Lawrence Krauss has recently attempted to do) just prolongs the misery, since whatever may be within  our ability to apprehend, or may eventually become apprehendable, there will always exist the possibility that there is still something outside of this new knowledge, whether it be 10 or 11 or 12 dimensions or some nothing that turns out not to be nothing. Attempts to arrive at knowledge about Truth by constructing a consistent logical argument regarding the divine attributes of God are vulnerable to claims that human logic is well, human, and therefore fallible.  These lines of inquiry lead, inevitably, to quibbling over what divine attributes a particular argument favors as being Godlike. In any case such arguments may be persuasive for some, but are never persuasive for all and have no absolutely necessary application within the space of public reason. There is “no known method to proceed from the known to the unknown” (James Joyce) when the matter at hand is the theoria of Aristotle.  While each individual may have their own experiential sense of Truth, or may choose to live within a traditional system of describing Truth or a Rawlsian “Comprehensive Doctrine” that seems reasonable to them, there is no method to examine the veracity of any claim to Truth.  

Another way to appreciate the distinction between Truth and facts is to borrow from John Searle’s distinction between subjective and objective data.  In the final lecture (Freedom of the Will) of his series 'Minds, Brains and Science', John Searle, Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, examines the evidence for and against the existence of free will.  Searle notes that while the perception of each of the six billion people in the world that they have free will is subjective, their combined experience is an objective fact of biology. Claims about Truth belong to the subjective realm, their apprehension being primarily experiential on an individual level, even when reasoned arguments are used to discuss them.  This is their proper domain. Facts reflect the combined experience of humans, are subject to objective methods of verification, and are suitable for the public domain. Because there is no sufficient method to examine veracity claims relating to Truth, we are left without a practical way forward when we enter any public domain that is predicated upon pluralistic, democratic ideals.  Since there is no method by which Truth may be arrived at, Truth remains outside the domain of public space. It is enough for such Truth be examined in private spaces, and those private spaces should, in a pluralistic, democratic society, be fully protected.

John Rawls writes that “Public reasoning aims for public justification.  We appeal to … ascertainable evidence and facts open to public view, in order to reach conclusions about what we think are the most reasonable political institutions and policies.  Public justification is not simply valid reasoning, but argument addressed to others...” A public space is a space that is necessary to further the aims of a democracy. Such a space is needed in order to come to agreements about areas that concern all members of that democracy, for instance when there are differing views about where the junctures of private space and public space should meet up or intersect, or about the utilization of common resources.  In such a space Truth may remain a matter of great personal importance for its participants. It may even motivate them to enter public space in the first place or to pursue certain aims within that space, but in a public space, there is no role for Truth to play. Public space is not a domain where Truth may serve to further the purposes for which public space exists in a democracy.

I understand it this way:  each domain has its own language (where a language is a comprehensive doctrine).  Each language makes sense to its adherents and is an effective tool of communication within its own domain.  As a system of interlocking domains, society, in order to function as a whole, must sometimes come together around problems that concern society.  In order to do this there must be a common language that is understood by all. This common language is the language of “Public Reason” that Rawls has attempted to construct, with clear syntax and grammar (rules and usages).  Without a common language, society is like the mythical tribes and groups who came together to create the Tower of Babel, abandoning their project when they could no longer communicate effectively with each other.

What does further the purposes of public space?  Michael Lynch offers us “practical reasons” as a method that can forward the aims of Public Space and Public Discourse.  Lynch makes a practical argument for some standards of reason as common currency that ought to be “politically privileged”.  These standards will include methods that are repeatable, adaptable and public. These three qualities are argued for because they hold a practical value in terms of efficacy.  They work. Because of this they allow for maximum participation by all members and so fulfill the requirements of what it means to be a liberal democracy. This is not to argue for a fully consistent epistemic foundation.  Rather it is to give practical reasons for adopting some standards over others while using reasons that can be recognized as reasons.

What makes these reasons practical?  Why is it necessary that they have the quality of being repeatable, adaptable and public?  For something to be practical, it must conform to the four dimensional world our senses are able to apprehend.  This is the interface we find ourselves within, what I call “the really real world.” It is practical to use mathematics to fit a door to a door frame because this method works to effect the end that is desired.  The door now fits the frame. It is more practical than an alternative method of ‘trial and error’ in that it saves time, energy and materials. In this way mathematics is a MORE practical method to fit a door to a door frame than the practical method of ‘trial and error’.  Once we are familiar with various methodologies that effect an efficient interface with the four-dimensional world, we can discern that certain methods are superior to others, whether in terms of time savings, cost savings, resource use, accuracy, etc. Thus we may advance practical reasons to support certain positions, which can legitimately be countered by other practical reasons.  It is the language of practical reasons that is necessary for communication to take place within public space. In this way comprehension is possible and compromise can sometimes be achieved.

There are certain types of interfaces with the four-dimensional world that are particularly useful because they have the quality of describing that world in a way that has accuracy.  I will call these interfaces ‘facts’. These facts may be mathematical constructs, they may be biological or chemical descriptions and interactions, they may include geological observations that offer a consistency of description, etc.  These facts are determined by methodologies that fall under the description of hard science. They are described thus because they have the advantages of being consistent, accurate and predictive. Our first historical record of the success of science began at 5:25 PM on May 28 in 585 BC at Miletus in Ionia. Thales, a natural (observer of nature) philosopher and astronomer, predicted a day earlier that an eclipse would occur at that time. Now, eclipses had been observed by mankind for millennia and had been occurring since the early days of the solar system, but this was the first time a 'scientist' had been able to predict one. Astronomers still use his method today. His effective prediction stopped a battle between the Medians and the Lydians, so from day one, the political consequences of science were felt!  We can see the enormous power and relevance of this way of knowing in this story of the birth of science.

Another type of interface with the four-dimensional world has the quality of being highly accurate, but not to the level of accuracy that we can see in the hard sciences.  These are referred to as the soft sciences. These interfaces are an attempt to bridge the gap between a mathematical accuracy in describing the world and the way humans intersect with that world.  By applying similar methodologies to the human condition, whether it be the study of anthropology, psychology, evolutionary biology, economics, etc. we attempt to have a more accurate framework to understand ourselves within the world.  This is an important distinction to make, because there is a significant difference between the predictive abilities of the soft sciences and the hard sciences. Just as the hard sciences began as descriptive attempts to understand the world, so too did the soft sciences.  The soft sciences are making the attempt to go beyond description and to gain accuracy in making predictive claims. They have not yet achieved the accuracy desired, and they may never achieve 100% accuracy, but there can be practical reasons put forth, based on information acquired through the kinds of methodological practices that have increased accuracy in the hard sciences.

In the last few centuries the scientific method has been practiced with such great predictive ability that the proliferation of scientific disciplines has been accelerating at a high rate.  Their number is currently doubling every 10 to 20 years as further specialization is required to accommodate the information being obtained. (E.O. Wilson) And yet, there appears to be a deep ambivalence or ignorance regarding science in America today.  Even as we acknowledge that it is through science that America has largely achieved its current status in the world, there is a large subculture that is seeking to undermine or marginalize the practice of science. This is evidenced in the current debates that are played out in the media about the veracity of the theory of evolution as opposed to “creationism” or “intelligent design”.   This cuts deeply into the problem of the role of public space and public discourse and how knowledge or facts are defined within that space. The decisions made within the public space about the education of children are what is at stake here. In a country that has long held the separation of church and state to be one of its core values, how have we come to a place where the private realm of Truth has invaded the public space of practical reasons?

One element that has dealt a fundamental blow to discourse of all kinds, but especially to public discourse, is a lack of concern for the precision of language.  Because language is a system of symbols derived for communication between discrete minds, the whole system fails when there is a lack of clarity pertaining to the meaning of the symbols themselves.  It does us absolutely no good if I ask you to close the door, and your understanding of the word “door” is what I would call a window, no matter how willing you might be to respond to my request. The task cannot be accomplished without further clarification.  Comprehension will remain elusive if we do not have a shared set of symbols. And it may take quite a bit of work on our parts to figure out where the symbolic disconnect has taken place. Until we come to a mutual understanding that my door is your window and agree upon a shared symbol for this item, communication cannot move forward.  These issues are thorny enough when we are dealing with a common language in a shared culture. Now consider that America is a union of many microcultures with populations of peoples from different cultures and languages and practices. Consider that language itself is constantly shifting in meaning and usage. Finally, consider that the language of science is a different kind of language from any of our spoken languages.  Some have claimed that it is essentially the language of mathematics. Practically it is the language of a methodology, a practice. How then can this be a language put forward as proper to the public space?

It is at this point that we acknowledge the important role that translators have played throughout human history.  The difficulties of translation across spoken languages are legion. Translations of non-spoken and extinct languages can be even more challenging, requiring the input of many other disciplines, such as archaeology, linguistics and anthropology, for maximum understanding.  The difficulty of translating across domains, from the language of mathematics, through a methodology and then into a common vernacular, is very great indeed. The importance of capable translators cannot be overstated if we expect to move forward in this exponentially expanding frontier of science, which has proved to be the most accurate language to describe, predict and manipulate the four-dimensional world we inhabit.  But who fills the role of translator and what qualities would it be necessary for them to show? How are they to be evaluated?

When translating across domains it may be necessary to have translators at different ontological levels.  For instance, there is the symbol itself that must have a commonly understood meaning. Then there is the way those symbols are grouped, the way those groupings are combined, the way those combinations work together, etc., until we arrive at a consonant understanding of the whole language.  As a loose analogy, in the discipline of science one could say that mathematics itself represents the symbols, the way those symbols are grouped (the syntax) are the application of mathematics to a methodology, and that the way those combinations of symbols (or grammar) works together is the methodology itself.  Following this analogy, there is no way of translating the findings of science without an underlying understanding of the basic syntax and grammar, by which I mean the methodology itself. One would have to understand that the method is procedural, that findings must be verifiable and repeatable, and that the results are always fundamentally provisional.

In fact, science has become a language of its own. The claim that mathematics is the language of science is only partly true. A language is defined by a lexicon, a grammar, and a syntax. The Sanskrit grammarian Panini in 700 BC in his "Astaditi" (Eight Lessons) observed that each word in a language's lexicon can have three kinds of meanings: denotative, connotative, and symbolic. As a technical jargon becomes more and more specialized, the commonly used meanings of words depart so far from the denotative until the differences of degree become differences of kind.  (Peter C. Patton) In this sense, science is not only a language, it is a live language, with many of te features of a live language; slang, shifts, variation etc. Translators must be adept at understanding context, audience, shifting patterns and areas of disagreement over meaning as they work to communicate scientific findings with the public.

 Scientists themselves are able to share a common language, even across varying disciplines within the science community.  Many scientists are able to translate their findings to the lay public in an effective way. But this is not always the case.  Scientists are often fully occupied with the work they do, and the effort to communicate this work to a lay audience is difficult and time consuming.  There are also scientists who irresponsibly misrepresent the discipline of science when they publish for the popular press, aiming at a lay audience, putting forward claims that are outside the domain of the scientific method.  This is particularly problematic because it exacerbates the problem of the public and their trust of the ‘expert’ scientist. When scientists are able to effectively translate findings to the general public, it can be staggeringly successful, as in the cases of Carl Sagan, Bill Nye, and Neil Degrasse Tyson.  But these are household names because they represent rare instances of the successful communication of complex ideas to the public.

Other participants in the communication of science to the public are journalists who specialize in writing about science.  The task of writing for the popular media is challenging, not only because of the difficulty of transcribing complex concepts to a lay public, but also because media easily falls prey to the ‘Propaganda Model” that Herman and Chomsky describe in “Manufacturing Consent”.  Given that American media is overwhelmingly in the hands of corporations which work under a market system and are dependent upon advertising revenue, the kind of writing that is published is largely aimed at the lowest common denominator in terms of readership.  By this, I mean that a constellation of attributes, such as stickiness, shock value, the outrage factor, etc., will override considerations of clarity, veracity and significance. And science journalists are susceptible to the same kind of influence that politicians are subject to.  Success in their field may be mediated by the corporations, universities and laboratories they are reporting on. The insidiousness of corporate and lobbying influence is notoriously hard to tease out. The scarcity of resources given to investigative journalism highlights the lack of will among the American media machine to inform the public.  In this way, even without an overarching or singular agenda from the upper ranks of the media (although this may also exist), the population is at the mercy of a whimsical market propaganda, swaying the public’s concern in whatever direction the winds of the market happen to be blowing.

The public also needs to beware of buying into "science futures," which are widely sold by biologists and medical researchers among others, such as research into artificial intelligence (AI) and cognitive psychology. These “futures” come in the form of "We don't know today how x works or causes y but in 20 years or so we will surely understand this." The media greedily buys these "futures" and resells them to the gullible public. (Patton) One such popular future is Ray Kurzweil's "Singularity," i.e., "In 30 years the average desktop computer will have a much higher IQ than its user, store more data than the Library of Congress, and will spontaneously exhibit self-awareness." Caveat Emptor! Even the media is wary of this one, and rightly so.  But this example serves to underscore the necessity for consumers of the media to be vigilant and wary of science claims, and to be equipped with the necessary tools to examine such claims.

There are also opposing philosophical claims to the efficacy of science as a way of knowing that must be answered.  If science is qua sui a language, what is its intended universe of discourse? It can only be empirical reality. However, Richard Rorty in his book 'Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature' argues that science is not adequate to this task and fails to accurately mirror nature or describe nature. The physicist Anne Conway agrees, pointing out that the language of science sometimes fails. She notes that Newton's Laws cannot be as precise as claimed: The first law says that any object in the universe enjoys uniform motion unless acted upon by another, yet the three laws together assert that everything in the universe acts upon every other by the inverse distance squared law, hence the first law can never truly be observed. She agrees with Rorty that the intended precision of science as a language about reality is actually only approximate, however so much more accurate than that of the shaman that it works well enough for practical use. The point of both Rorty and Conway is we cannot really "know".  I am not dissuaded by these arguments. My point is to privilege any method which can empirically show the most accurate interface with the four-dimensional world. If shamanism were that interface, then so be it. But this is not the case. If a scientist makes a claim that overreaches the empirical evidence, the process of science will eventually bear out the shortcomings of the claim. It is the process that is privileged, not any particular claim.

We currently find ourselves in the midst of a conundrum.  The space of public reason has been overrun by members who wish to promote Truth claims rather than practical reasons in order to advance their agenda.  Part of that agenda impacts the education of public school children. These members specifically wish to promote Truth claims as having equivalent or superior value to the claims of science as an interface with the “really real” four-dimensional world in the education of American children.  They themselves have exhibited an insufficient grasp of, or complete disregard for, the language of science. In their zeal to promote their own private comprehensive doctrines they privilege Truth claims over practical reasons. It is as if, in order to cut off the possibility of communication that might challenge their own private doctrines, they refuse to allow children to learn and master the most important language of the 21st century.  In this way, the future of our children is hamstrung, where limitations in education are externally imposed, preventing full freedom of intellectual development and utilization of resources.  

One does not need superior imaginative abilities to discern some of the possible consequences if this state of affairs is not rectified.  There is evidence that American children are already falling behind their peers in developed countries in the sciences and in technology. If this continues, there will be enormous economic, industrial and environmental consequences.  The language of science is the most powerful interface between the human mind and the four-dimensional world. Without a commitment to the teaching of this language in our schools, and without the support of expert translators, whether they are scientists themselves or gifted science writers, we will find ourselves playing a role in a modern day version of the Tower of Babel.  We will each be speaking different languages, without a common form of communication or a public space in which to practice public discourse.  

There cannot be a robust public discourse without a reasonably educated public.  Where public discourse includes the language of science in offering practical reasons  for making choices about public resources and decisions regarding the maintenance of a civil democracy, the success of the public space is predicated on members having a reasonable fluency in that language.  A stalemate in this arena will have clear consequences which will not be long in coming, given both the currently accelerating scientific interface with the physical world and the increasing use of the resources of that world by humans.  Left unaddressed, problems of the environment will become blatantly obvious, with widespread impact. Countries that value the language of science will be better suited to adapt to the changes of an increasingly complex world. There will be economic consequences that will favor the countries that,  having invested in mastering the language of science, are better able to navigate the problems of the future. The necessity of separating out Truth claims from practical reasons and facts in the public space has reached a critical point. If we do not privilege practical reasons and the language of science, and invest in an educated public that is fluent in the very language necessary to navigate the world, we will find ourselves unable to move forward.

Works Cited

Aristotle, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/

Herman, E. S., & Chomsky, N. (2002). Manufacturing consent, the political economy of the mass media. (Updated Edition ed.). New York: Pantheon Books.

Joyce, James,  (1922). Ulysses ‘Ithaca’.  New York: Random House (1986 Ed.)

Lynch, Michael P., (2012).  Democracy as a Space of Reasons, Truth and Democracy 

Patton, Peter C., (2013).  Private conversations and emails

Plato, Apologia, http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html

Rawls, John, (1997) The Idea of Public Reason Revisited

Rorty, Richard, (1979) Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature

Searle, John, (1984) REITH LECTURES 1984: Minds, Brains and Science

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00h2chv

Wilson, E.O.,  (2013) http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/05/08/eo-wilson-letters-young-scientst

Oh Dark, Dark, Dark. We All Go Into the Dark.

We must all go into the dark, the place of not knowing, ­ the underground if you will, if we want to emerge as whole creatures. Our integrity, our wholeness, depends on this struggle in the darkness. Some make attempts to escape this travail by grasping at religious dogma or by following charismatic leaders who tell them what to do, and thereby think they can avoid the struggle. Some develop
elaborate theories of human behavior that claim that the kind of rigorous self­examination required in this place of anxiety and uncertainty is unnecessary, is even counterproductive. Every era has its preferred methods, or its recycling of older materials into new garments, to relieve the pressures of the dark. Two thousand years ago Paul of Tarsus formulated the problem in this way: “That which I would I do not:  but that which I would not, that I do.” (Romans 7:19) This is the nature of man, every bit as much a part of him as his reasoning mind and his wild heart. Dostoevsky’s underground man writes “reason, gentlemen, is an excellent thing, there is no disputing that, but reason is only reason and can only satisfy man’s rational faculty, while will is a manifestation of all life, that is, of all human life including reason as well as all impulses.” (p. 45) The underground man seeks wholeness, to live all of his faculties, but he becomes mired in his darkness, stuck in the power of his own spite.

Dostoevsky’s underground man insists that the determinism conceived of by the scientists and utilitarian thinkers of his day is incoherent. It cannot relieve of us the dark. The notion of rational determinism was gaining traction among the thinkers of Dostoevsky’s time. The underground man pushes back strongly against this theme, railing against the idea that man acts in accordance with the dictates of his reason to promote his own good. The utilitarian idea that if we can only calculate our

best ‘good’ we will choose to act according to that calculation is held up for examination and roundly defeated. The underground man is a keen observer of human nature and human history and will not be swept up in the utopian zeal that reason can solve problems of human behavior. This idea has returned to us clothed in the language of cognitive neuroscience where claims are made that it can be shown empirically that humans do not have free will. New window dressing for a new age.

The underground man insists that humans have this freedom of will, even to their own hurt. He cites the obvious historical truth that we often choose to do what harms us, clinching his argument that man has this freedom. He calls it man’s “most advantageous advantage”; “one’s own fancy ­ free unfettered choice” arguing that this “right to desire for himself... may be more advantageous than anything else on earth... because it preserves what is most precious and most important­­ that is, our personality, our individuality.” (p.43) This acting against our own interests is then not irrational at all. It preserves our sense of our own “quidditas” ­ our “thisness/me­ness”, something needed for survival. Man will stubbornly assert “What I do is me! For that I came.” (G.M. Hopkins) He goes further though. He thinks that man will choose against his own good sometimes just to prove to himself and to others that he has this freedom, that he is alive and not just a cog in a machine, or a piano key to hammer. Even at the price of harming himself man will choose against his own good out of sheer spite.

But spite against what? Against a sense of meaninglessness ­ of the absurdity of the universe? The underground man repeats four times that man is ungrateful:

“Or rather he is not stupid at all, but he is so ungrateful that you could not find another like him in all creation.” (p.43)
“But if he is not stupid, he is just the same monstrously ungrateful! Phenomenally ungrateful. I even believe that the best definition of man is ­­ a creature that walks on two legs and is ungrateful.” (p.46)
“... even then man, out of sheer ingratitude, sheer libel, would play you some loathsome trick.” (p.47)
“Man... would purposely do something perverse out of sheer ingratitude, simply to have his own way.” (p. 47)

But what is he ungrateful about? Who or what is he being ungrateful towards? And what would gratitude look like, if man was grateful? In “On the Shortness of Life” Seneca suggests a way of thinking about the gratitude man ought to feel. He writes:

“Of all people only those are at leisure who make time for philosophy, only those are really alive. For they not only keep a good watch over their own lifetimes, but they annex every age to theirs. All the years that have passed before them are added to their own. Unless we are very ungrateful, all those distinguished founders of holy creeds were born for us and prepared for us a way of life. By the toil of others we are led into the presence of things which have been brought from darkness into light.”
By looking beyond ourselves and beyond our own age, there is a connection to be found to those around us and to those who came before us. This is a profound gift from that same universe that tortures us. We may be reeling from life’s slings and arrows, but not to acknowledge this gift is both ungrateful and stupid.

But the underground man is not stupid. He sees the gifts there to be grasped, but he cannot yet grasp them. The absurdity of the universe has driven the man underground. He has observed that
events are often random, that some men prosper and others do not, and that the causes for this are impossible to determine, and explanations unsatisfactory. Life is not fair. The wicked prosper. Those who do good are not rewarded. There is no certainty of any meaning to be found in these random incidents ­ or to the seeming patterns that men desperately construct to try to make meaning where
there is none. He sees this and so he is forced underground because he will not turn a blind eye to what he sees. He has tried to find meaning in work and in relationships, in building a life for himself. But he keeps crashing into this wall of meaninglessness, of ennui. The traditional forms of self­interest leave him bored and unconvinced. Absurdity (randomness) can strike anyone at anytime, regardless of their virtue. The proverbial bus could run him over at any moment. And so he falls into listlessness and futility and nurses his sense of spite. This is preferable to living in mimicry, as one supposedly ‘should’ live. It is more authentic to live underground in a kind of despair than to play act on the world’s stage. 

But is there no other way than to persist underground? Can one emerge from the darkness as a whole being, living authentically in the outer world? Can one grasp the gifts that are there for the taking? Dostoevsky does not illustrate an answer for this question in Notes from Underground, or at least not in the novel as it comes to us. He did write a section that was heavily censored by the Russian authorities, which purportedly (as he wrote in a letter to his brother Mikhael) offers his ideas on a way to emerge from the dark. He wrote that the “swine of a censor ... suppressed all the passages where I drew conclusions that faith in Christ is needed." (Roberts, James)

The underground man has succumbed to a sense of his own importance/unimportance. He is trapped in a strange play of narcissism. He is no monster, his suffering is not more than that allotted to any of us, his behavior no worse than what is common to all of us. He behaves badly, and then compensates for this by indulging his own sense of pathos and futility as he remains mired in self­hatred. This is moral laziness of a very desperate and determined kind. It is not the illness of depression that can swallow a man up. It has too much energy and determination, too much self­indulgence rather than the self­abnegation of those in the grip of a killing depression. His refusal to connect to others, to see the “quidditas” of others, which he insists on for himself with his freedom to choose, traps him in his darkness.

Dostoevsky illustrates for us, in the parable of the Grand Inquisitor, a choice which has radically different implications for what freedom means. The Grand Inquisitor lectures the imprisoned Christ on His error in leading humans to freedom. In his compassion for mankind, the Inquisitor wants only to alleviate their suffering, the greatest of which comes from this freedom and the burdens of responsibility that it implies. We can see that the underground man is suffering from his freedom as well, mired in his spite and anxiety and self ­absorption. But Christ, and Alyosha after him, show in one gesture that a different choice can lead to a greater freedom. Each of them approaches their adversary and kisses them. A simple gesture of connection, signifying both love, acceptance and forgiveness, this kiss has profound transformative power. It brings us outside ourselves, connecting each to the other, when we give the kiss. It connects the adversary to their own humanity when they receive it. The underground man also receives a form of this kiss ­ this kiss of gratitude ­ from Liza, even after he mistreats her. We do not get to see if the underground man will be able to grasp this gift. The Russian censors have left us with a mystery. Dostoevsky left his readers with an empty tomb. We don’t get to know for certain if there is a resurrection into the light for this man. But I am hopeful. And I think that there is.

Title: Eliot, T.S. The Four Quartets
Hopkins, Gerard Manley, “As kingfishers catch fire, dragonflies draw flame” Roberts, James L. Cliffs Notes on Notes from Underground. 25 Sep 2014 

How To Become Porous - by Molly Pope

Start off ignorant. Deflect provoking topics and questions. Don’t take anyone too seriously - especially not yourself. Be thick-skinned. Avoid vulnerability. When your rough exterior prevents you from seeking support, fantasize about comfort but never pursue it. Learn what the word ‘fester’ means. Brush it off. Impose your emotional harshness on the most vulnerable people around you. You will resent yourself for this later. For now, mistake hardness for strength and criticize your desire for introspection. Recognize how your ignorance limits your sphere of influence in the world. Stop taking yourself so seriously. Maintain your ignorance.

Shatter your ignorance. Experience a life-altering event. Consequently develop what has been described to you as an ‘isolated sensorimotor memory track.’ The frequent short-circuiting to this dangerous mental territory is like a series of emotional concussions. Flashback-induced headaches give you the sensation that your skull is resisting the expansion of a black hole in your brain. The unpredictability of these outbursts is fascinating and terrifying. In an attempt to condition yourself, flex your entire being and intentionally inundate yourself with triggering stimuli. Unfortunately, you learn, this is the physiological equivalent of picking at a bad pimple. Stop doing it. The frailty of the human psyche continues to fascinate you and terrify you. Weep. If you clench the wound in your fist, it will bleed through the cracks. You are incredibly vulnerable. Ignorance is no longer an option.

Notice how the shattering of your ignorance has expanded your sphere of influence in the world; you’ve learned something you always wanted to know in a way you never wanted to learn it and people listen closer than they ever had before. Embrace this but struggle with it. Every day, the world will break your heart a little more. You have to let it. Open your eyes. Recognize the suffering that surrounds you daily. Don’t look away; the life you’d be living the moment you choose to avert your eyes is infinitely darker than the one you see looking forward. So keep looking. Be a source of light in the world; share every hidden pocket of sunshine you stumble upon with those who surround you. If somebody’s suffering is too great for consolation, remain present. Learn to carry others with you, and learn to cry for them. It will probably take you most of your life to be strong enough to do this. For now, at least understand the value of your tears. Refuse to let the world make you hard; hardness is not strength.

This is what it is to be porous. Breathe through your entire soul. Do not fool yourself; this way of living will not eradicate your suffering. You may never stop aching for the return of those you lost too young, too soon. But maybe someday you'll have seen enough through this porous lens to paint the whole world for them. Maybe someday you'll be able to paint it all so intricately and so authentically for them that they’ll feel like they were right here with the rest of you all along.

Unlike ·  · Share

Is it Ever Permissible and/or Obligatory to Intervene during a Genocide?

Genocide has come to the fore in the minds of 20th Century peoples.  Since the Shoah of World War II, the killing fields of Cambodia, the purges of Stalin, the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, the wholesale slaughter of Rwandans, and on and on, it can be said that no one is ignorant of the fact of genocide.  Samantha Powell has called it “The Problem from Hell” and that is perhaps an understatement.  After each genocide the rallying cry is “Never again” and “Never forget”, and yet genocide continues unabated.  The world comes up with new phrases to describe the indescribable: ‘killing fields, purges, ethnic cleansing,’ and one wonders if this is not the human minds’ willed confusion to avoid the naming of a thing so as to not have to come to terms with it.  In the same way the United Nations took decades to agree upon a definition of genocide, so unwilling is the human heart to look into that particular abyss.  

And when the world is willing to appropriate the name of genocide and attach it to ongoing events in a part of the world, still very little is offered in the way of an intervention.  Those enduring the slaughter wonder if no one knows, or if the world does not care.  Yet, one can find numerous private groups and organizations mobilized to help the helpless and to bring about an end to the suffering.  The world does care, and yet fails to offer an effective response.  Genocide reaches into our neighborhoods and living rooms when we see how people who look just like each other, who have lived for generations as neighbors, can become involved in a slaughter of innocents.  It permeates countries and cultures and political frameworks.  We too, if we are human, are at risk for genocide.  Yes, and our neighbors too.

Genocide is not a new problem.  History can be gleaned for instances of this particular mode of man’s inhumanity to man. It can be described as mere tribalism, now multiplied exponentially.  Modern weaponry, modern communications, the confusion of multitudes, all these lead to this relic of tribalism, but on steroids.  The world is not, I believe, uncaring, or unwilling in these matters.  But the world has not found a way to craft an appropriate response, and is as helpless as the helpless we would hope to save.  Can this change?  Can there be a creative, effective, carefully crafted response to genocide?

The world once transitioned from systems of tribes to systems of city-states, and from there to nation states.  The modern challenge comes as a transition to a global state, politically following what is already in effect economically.  More than ever we are subject to John Donne’s pronouncement that “No man is an island’.  Indeed no country is an island either.  In this period of transition, we must ask, what are the rules?  Are they the same?  Do we still apply the theories of just war, or of realism?  Is it possible in the face of slaughter to remain a pacifist?  The problem of genocide sidesteps some of the cautions that might adhere if we are wondering about whether to intervene in civil wars, or military coups, or dictatorships.  We are no longer asking only about the rights of a people to be left alone to determine their welfare.  This is a question of a peoples’ right to existence, and what is permissible or even obligatory to those who, if they did act, could make a difference in preserving those lives.

I am not arguing here for a particular decision, but for a new discussion regarding what the framework should be for permissible and/or obligatory intervention on the part of the worlds’ more powerful actors.  The precept, borrowed from medicine, of “first do no harm” may be, on the face of it, the most difficult hurdle to pass.  In an increasingly complex world it may be vanishingly improbable that enough information is ever at hand to be able to anticipate the unintended consequences that all actions are susceptible to.  Where it is impossible to know beforehand whether more harm may ensue can there still be a moral argument to take action?   Here I would argue that, even after events unfold, the complexity of our modern world is such that we still can not with certainty claim that less or more harm would have ensued had we taken a different course.  Therefore we must answer this question from a moral standpoint, rather than a utilitarian standpoint.

The criteria of “The Probability of Success” fails in the same regard as the first.  We cannot know beforehand, or even afterwards, regarding the effectiveness of our action in relation to if we had not acted at all.  Therefore again, this question must be answered from a moral standpoint.  But this does not mean that we cannot also make arguments toward what we hope will be more effective courses of action.  And information of this sort might not be available until the world has had more experience with intervening in genocides.  We have simply not intervened often enough to be able to collect enough relevant data to make empirical statements about what works.

Intervention would not conflict with the criteria of ‘Just Cause’ and ‘Right Intentions’, for what could be a more just cause than that which has the sole purpose and intent of stopping the deaths of innocents?  The difficulty seems to lie in the criteria of ‘Competent Authority’ and ‘Last Resort.’  Here again, the global nature of the modern world creates a scenario not unlike that which social scientists call the “bystander effect”.  Each authority is waiting for another authority to step in, with no nation wishing to take the first act.  And this is not easily overcome when there is always the suspicion that not everything has been tried, that we need not yet take intervening action as a Last Resort.

Perhaps some of the modern difficulty is an artifact of where the world finds itself in the modern arena, with discrete nations which are nevertheless economically intertwined, but which have not yet developed any kind of effective and agreed upon central authority with which to bring problems of the nature and magnitude of genocide.  The United Nations ought to be this kind of central authority, but has not yet developed or been invested with the ability to respond to the question of intervening in a genocide.  My hope is that a discussion around these issues can lead to a consensus concerning the criteria that would be sufficient to permit intervention and necessary to obligate an intervention.  Through such means it may be that the world will find itself less able to remain frozen in the stillness of a bystander.

‘Thinking: Fast and Slow’ - Lessons in Certitude

I have a bias.  I admit this.  I have a bias against certitude.  And I have a great fondness for Daniel Kahneman’s book, because it absolutely confirms my bias.  I am annoyingly fond of quoting William James:  “Objective evidence and certitude are doubtless very fine ideals to play with, but where on this moonlit and dream-visited planet are they found?”  In the same spirit I am committing many of Kahneman’s statements to memory.  His work as laid out in this book helps us to understand how we might respond to James’ rhetorical question.  

Kahneman’s use of a ‘two minds’ model in order to understand our own cognitive defects is enormously helpful.  He illustrates through careful and well thought out experiments the many ways in which we are not the rational beings that we think we are.  When the realization that we are vulnerable to the availability heuristic, the affect heuristic, confirmatory bias, ego depletion, loss aversion, the exposure and the priming effect and all the thousands of natural deficits that the human mind is heir to, then we might finally come to the realization that ‘humility is endless’.  (T.S. Eliot)

There often follows a question about the dangers of acknowledging that we do not, and perhaps can never, know anything with the certitude required for action.  Therefore there is a profound discomfort with this admission about our mental deficits, as if the admission itself will hamstring our ability to ever affect our world in a positive way.  Here I think that we must first make a commitment to what is true, as Socrates did.  Hopefully we will not die for it, but I am sure that we will be discomfited by it.  Until we acknowledge our human frailties of mind, emotion and reason, we will be forever mired in a kind of Hegelian purgatory, with one persons certitude polarized against another’s until they can beat out a kind of compromise that suits no one.

I believe that it is only when we accept our limitations, and come to understand what methods might be used to challenge ourselves to a greater clarity of mind, even knowing that we cannot approach as close to certitude as we would like, that we can most effectively work for improvements in our own lives and in the world.  It takes humility of spirit and intention to listen to and fully hear the stories of those with whom we disagree.  And I think it is this kind of listening that will lead to the culture shifts that are necessary before policy and platform changes can emerge.  The philosopher/poet/animal trainer Vicki Hearne wrote “The stories we tell ourselves are enormously important.”  When we become mindful and attentive to our stories and the stories of others, we might just have a chance.

What does it feel like to lose a child?

What does it feel like to lose a child? It feels like giving birth, but instead of bringing a child into this world, it is the giving of the child to whatever is beyond this world. And instead of a single event, it happens again and again and again. It hijacks you in the middle of a concert, or while listening to a lecture, or while driving to the grocery store. First you realize that it is harder and harder to catch your breath, and a vague panic sets in as your body takes over and you recede as an observer to a process that you cannot stop. Then the pains begin, waves of contractions, intensifying, then receding just long enough so you can gasp at the air before they come again. Then as they circle in, more and more intense, there is the need to bear down, to push and push, and to grit your teeth against the screams that will not be stopped, but grow louder and louder, til there is no voice left. It only comes to a close when exhaustion sets in. But it will come again. It comes unbidden, without thought, and keeps me always in this middle place, between worlds, never wholly here nor there. 'Stayed by what was, and pulled by what would be'. That is what it is like.

Tiling Metaphysical Space with a Trinity of Principles

Celtic Knot Anisohedral Tiling (Tessellation)

It is my precept and understanding that the teachings of Jesus can be refined down to three basic principles: 

1) Everyone is included
2) Don't judge others
3) Treat people right

These form a kind of twitter like shorthand (mix those metaphors, Tess) that are easily remembered, easily understood and well, not so easily lived out.  My evidence for #1 comes primarily from the parables.  I do not think it is by accident that Jesus told stories, that he created narrative to communicate ideas.  Stories weather the ravages of texts and culture and abuse, retaining their coherence and power across the ages better than many others forms of teaching.  The scholar John Dominic Crossan wrote "Cliffs of Fall: Paradox and Polyvalence in the Parables of Jesus."  Those who know me will realize quickly that I came to love this book first because of it's title.  The reference to Gerard Manley Hopkins "Dark Night of the Soul" sonnet  "No worst, there is none" is a soul catcher for me.  And then the alliteration in the title, including the word polyvalence which rolls so trippingly off the tongue, grabbed at my aesthetic sensibilities.  But I stayed for the content.  I do think that the parables are the closest that we can come to the "ipsissima verba", the very words that Jesus spoke.  And so I weight them more heavily than other texts.

And the evidence for #1 comes from the The Parable of the Wedding Feast.  There is an ever widening circle of invitations, ending with "Go therefore to the main highways, and as many as you find there, invite to the wedding feast".  Ultimately, everyone is invited.  And in stories from the activities of Jesus, he included the tax collectors, the prostitutes, the lepers.  Why, he even included the children!  The invitation is for everyone, without exception.  Those who participate in exclusionary dealings with others are not following the actions and words and example of Jesus.


The evidence for #2 comes from the story of the Woman taken in Adultery and from the Sermon on the Mount.  In his Sermon Jesus is very clear about judgment.  “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.  For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."   And in the story of the Woman taken in Adultery, Jesus refuses to cast judgment, even as the Pharisees are trying to put him in a difficult position.  He uses the same line of thinking as he gave us in the Sermon.  He tells the accusers that whoever among them is without sin, he may cast the first stone.  There is the apocryphal story that as Jesus was saying this he was writing the sins of the accusers in the dust.  Jesus refuses to participate in the dialogue that the Pharisees are trying to control.  He sidesteps their intentions by answering their question with a question of his own.  And thereby goes straight to the heart of the problem of judgment.

The evidence for #3 is known generally to us moderns as "The Golden Rule".  "Do to others what you would have them do to you."  It is also called the "Ethic of Reciprocity" and exists in some form in almost all belief and philosophical systems:

Brahmanism"This is the sum of Dharma [duty]: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you". Mahabharata, 5:1517 "

Buddhism:"...a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?" Samyutta NIkaya v. 353 

Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Udana-Varga 5:18

Confucianism:  "Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you" Analects 15:23

Ancient Egypt:   "Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do." The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, 109 - 110 Translated by R.B. Parkinson. The original dates to circa 1800 BCE and may be the earliest version of the Epic of Reciprocity ever written.

Hinduism:  This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you. Mahabharata 5:1517 

Islam:  "None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." Number 13 of Imam "Al-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths."

Judaism:  "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary." Talmud, Shabbat 31a.

I like to simplify it to "treat people right", because I have a core belief that each one of us really DOES know how to do that, if we only spend a little bit of time thinking about it.

Now, it cannot be ignored that I have not included any of Jesus' directives about love among this trinity of principles.  The reason for this is because I think that there is an inversion that has taken place and reigns supreme in our culture.  And this inversion makes it difficult to use the word love in a way that communicates what I believe Jesus meant when he used the word love. The inversion is that love is a feeling.  Love is not a feeling.  Love is an action.  Love is played out in the act of refraining from judgment.  Love is played out in all acts of inclusion.  Love is played out each time we treat another person well.  It may be that a wonderful feeling follows upon these acts and even helps to perpetuate them.  Or it may not.  But it is in carrying out these acts that we are doing the work of love.

Imagine our lives if we can live each day with these three principles in mind, just 3x3 words:

Everyone is included.

Do not judge.

Treat people right.

Each principle is a tile that we can use to pattern the metaphorical plane and create a tessellation; a pattern or behavior that makes a work of art from out of the actions in our lives.  This is loving the Lord with all our heart, with all our soul, with all our strengh and with all our mind.  And this is loving our neighbor as ourselves.