285 lines
16 KiB
Plaintext
285 lines
16 KiB
Plaintext
|
|
|||
|
### ###
|
|||
|
### ###
|
|||
|
### #### ### ### ### ####
|
|||
|
### ### ##### ### ###
|
|||
|
### ### ### ### ###
|
|||
|
### ### ##### ### ###
|
|||
|
########## ### ### ##########
|
|||
|
### ###
|
|||
|
### ###
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Underground eXperts United
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Presents...
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
####### ## ## ####### # # ####### ####### #######
|
|||
|
## ## ## ## ##### ## ## ## ## ##
|
|||
|
#### ## ## #### # # ####### ####### #######
|
|||
|
## ## ## ## ##### ## ## ##
|
|||
|
## ## ####### ####### # # ####### ####### #######
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
[ To Get To The Real Problems ] [ By The GNN ]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
____________________________________________________________________
|
|||
|
____________________________________________________________________
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
TO GET TO THE REAL PROBLEMS
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
by THE GNN/DualCrew-Shining/uXu
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
"All wrong-doing is done in the sincere
|
|||
|
belief that it is the best thing to do."
|
|||
|
(Arnold Bennet)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
When two children are arguing about who is the real owner of a rock they
|
|||
|
have found on the ground, we, as 'adults', conclude that they are involved
|
|||
|
in something we would call a 'small problem.' This is not to say that the
|
|||
|
problem is small to the children. They surely believe that the argument must
|
|||
|
be settled. But as adults, we realize that there are 'bigger' problems to
|
|||
|
take care of in this world, and that the children will soon come to
|
|||
|
understand that too - when they have, hopefully, reached the intellectual
|
|||
|
capacity needed.
|
|||
|
But then, what are the so-called 'big' problems today? Immediate answers
|
|||
|
perhaps suggests 'how to end wars,' 'how to end the pollution,' or 'how to
|
|||
|
increase our level of knowledge concerning the universe and the human
|
|||
|
nature.' I believe very few people would dare to claim that these questions
|
|||
|
are not important. However, there is a strange detail which should not be
|
|||
|
ignored in these answers. They do not say that the big problems are 'why do
|
|||
|
wars exist' or 'why do we pollute the nature' or 'how are we ACTUALLY trying
|
|||
|
to reach the answers to the problems blah and blah?'
|
|||
|
Furthermore, the various solutions to these problems have also a peculiar
|
|||
|
detail. They seldom suggest that wars ought to be ended with the help of
|
|||
|
education, nor do they suggest that knowledge concerning the universe should
|
|||
|
be reached by anything else than astro-physics (or perhaps even just
|
|||
|
physics.)
|
|||
|
Still, I have not yet presented any real problem with all the above.
|
|||
|
Perhaps they should be regarded as the best solutions to the 'big' problems.
|
|||
|
However, my aim with this paper is to show that much of the contemporary
|
|||
|
thinking on human nature and global problems suffers from several drawbacks,
|
|||
|
and I also hope to convince at least someone that the only way to overcome
|
|||
|
these drawbacks is to begin to think in a different way. Otherwise, we will
|
|||
|
not be able to reach the goals we strive for.
|
|||
|
In this essay, I will shortly try to put forward this idea on how to
|
|||
|
think differently, and I will put it in the context of environmental
|
|||
|
problems. I believe that even though those who fights for the environment
|
|||
|
believes that they are seeing the world in a 'holistic' sense, this belief
|
|||
|
is mistaken. The real problem of today is that we are thinking in the wrong
|
|||
|
way. This is not to say that we have not noticed the environmental problems
|
|||
|
(otherwise, such groups as Greenpeace would not exist) around us, or that we
|
|||
|
are not trying to solve them. But I claim that none of these methods we are
|
|||
|
using right now will be of any use if we do not come to understand that
|
|||
|
there is a more fundamental problem that must be give proper attention to.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The 'fundamental problem' in question concerns the way we look at the
|
|||
|
world, or more precise; the way we are not looking at the world today. The
|
|||
|
reason why we are not looking at the world in a proper way has nothing to do
|
|||
|
with our level of KNOWLEDGE, it has to do with our INTELLECTUAL CAPACITY.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
(Of course, such a statement needs a couple of definitions. I regard
|
|||
|
knowledge as the capacity to, for example, build machines (develop science).
|
|||
|
But it also the capacity to notice and present solutions to problems (such
|
|||
|
as environmental problems). The physician knows how to split an atom (and
|
|||
|
how an atom works), while a Greenpeace members knows that the pollution
|
|||
|
today must be stopped, and that one way to do this is to trash all cars that
|
|||
|
runs on gasoline in favor for battery-charged vehicles. (The ancient Greeks
|
|||
|
had a single word that is rather good: Techn.) Intellectual capacity is
|
|||
|
another thing. It is the 'intellectual glasses' we wear, how we see the
|
|||
|
world and the problems around us. I may know how to construct an a-bomb, but
|
|||
|
my intellectual capacity might make me view this invention in a broader
|
|||
|
perspective and find it to be morally wrong.)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Intellectual capacity is the capacity to 'see things' in a different way.
|
|||
|
The children who fought over a stone had not developed this capacity
|
|||
|
completely. They could just see the quarrel of the stone as important, they
|
|||
|
SAW this quarrel as something important in the world and they also SAW the
|
|||
|
need for settling this conflict as important. They did not, however, see the
|
|||
|
fact that the quarrel was unimportant, and leads to no results, from start.
|
|||
|
But the 'adults' are in no better position when it comes to 'bigger
|
|||
|
problems.' We are also lacking a form of intellectual capacity that is of
|
|||
|
utmost importance.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Let us compare the different global problems in this world, such as
|
|||
|
pollution, economy and ignorance with this little family drama: Those who
|
|||
|
works for the sake of the environment are like children who observes a
|
|||
|
leaking pipe in the basement of a house. The pipe is on its way to fill the
|
|||
|
whole basement with dangerous oil. They present different methods on how to
|
|||
|
fix the pipe, but by some strange reason they never succeed. They do,
|
|||
|
however, believe that they will succeed, if they manage to convince enough
|
|||
|
people in the house about the urge for fixing the pipe. Some of them thinks
|
|||
|
that the one who must be convinced is Dad, who sits in his office on the top
|
|||
|
floor trying to organize the economy of the family. Or, some of them
|
|||
|
perhaps believes that the one who must be convinced is Mum, who watches
|
|||
|
television all day, never considering the problems in the cellar.
|
|||
|
All of these suggestions are worthless. Dad will believe that economy is
|
|||
|
the best solution to all problems and Mum will keep on watching television,
|
|||
|
and the free-lance good-doers in the basement will keep on staring at the
|
|||
|
leaking pipe. What they need to do is to step out of the whole house and
|
|||
|
watch it from a distance, and see that the real problem is not the economy,
|
|||
|
not the bad shows on television, but that the whole house is falling apart
|
|||
|
due to the fact that they are busy with the small problems inside the house.
|
|||
|
They all need to expand their intellectual capacity, so they will be able to
|
|||
|
see the real problems.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
(For those who have not really understood this long-shot simile; The
|
|||
|
Children are those who works for the environment and believes that this is
|
|||
|
the most important problem of today, Dad is the one who works for the
|
|||
|
government and believes that economy and 'economical growth' is the most
|
|||
|
important question today, while Mum is the ignorant masses (if someone is
|
|||
|
offended by this, please excuse me) who never pays much attention to the
|
|||
|
problems at all. Yes, it is possible to include more family members, like
|
|||
|
the unemployed Brother who believes that unemployment is the most important
|
|||
|
problem of today, but that is not really necessary. None of the people
|
|||
|
inside the house lacks knowledge: The children know how to see the direct
|
|||
|
problems, Dad knows how to run the economy and Mom knows how to use the
|
|||
|
remote-control. The knowledge is just used in the wrong way.)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
What we need to do is a kind of intellectual paradigm-switch. FIRST, we
|
|||
|
need to see the world in a different way, THEN we can take care of the
|
|||
|
problems that exists. Otherwise, we will get nowhere. The way of thinking
|
|||
|
that I am looking for is a holistic view. However, I do not say that this
|
|||
|
holism if some kind of conjunction between Dad/Mom/Children - i.e. that all
|
|||
|
views ought to be put into one. That belongs to future, after we have
|
|||
|
switched paradigm.
|
|||
|
I will try to explain what it means to 'see' the world in a different
|
|||
|
light with the help from Plato, and his definition of the broad-minded
|
|||
|
'philosopher:' Plato's philosopher is a very special, and uncommon, person.
|
|||
|
While the 'ordinary people' may have the same knowledge as the philosopher,
|
|||
|
they do not own the same intellectual capacity. Instead, they are living in
|
|||
|
kind of dream, which is far away from the real reality. In this false
|
|||
|
reality, 'truths' are twisted and hence far away from the real truth. But
|
|||
|
the philosopher may, by simply using his mind, come closer to the real
|
|||
|
reality. Therefor, he is free from dogmas and mere opinions (as lower than
|
|||
|
knowledge) even though it means that he is just able to say that he knows
|
|||
|
nothing.
|
|||
|
But the philosopher in this definition is not narrow-minded - someone who
|
|||
|
is just able to claim that one cannot know anything. He is able to see (or
|
|||
|
at least get closer to) the real problems, that are well-hidden behind the
|
|||
|
small and false problems that are occupying the minds of the more 'common
|
|||
|
people.' He has developed his intellectual capacity beyond the level of the
|
|||
|
'ordinary.'
|
|||
|
So, the common people moans over small problems and tries to solve them.
|
|||
|
But the truth is that their problems are nothing more than the result of
|
|||
|
dogmas and dreams, far away from the real reality and the real problems. The
|
|||
|
philosopher is not only able to see that these problems are sort of
|
|||
|
worthless, he is also able to see what the real problems consist of.
|
|||
|
The common people sees the world very narrowly. The philosopher sees it
|
|||
|
broadly. The reason for this lies in their respective intellectual capacity.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
In a sense, we are too narrow-minded. Too many people walks around in the
|
|||
|
cloudy night, wearing sunglasses, believing that they are clear-sighted. We
|
|||
|
fail to see the world in a holistic sense, or - we fail to think in a more
|
|||
|
holistic way. Those who believes that they are thinking in a holistic way
|
|||
|
(which are often people who fights for the environment) are mistaken. They
|
|||
|
are just seeing the environmental problems in a global perspective, but that
|
|||
|
does not help if we want to get anywhere with the problems.
|
|||
|
Why are we thinking like this? There are many theories available, too
|
|||
|
many to be presented here. But one could be the theories that 'modern
|
|||
|
science' gives us - theories that indirectly are meant to explain everything
|
|||
|
in this world in a physical sense (which is, to say the least, very far away
|
|||
|
from holism). Since science is regarded as the holy bible of today, the
|
|||
|
possible answer to all questions, it is not strange that people (without
|
|||
|
even knowing about it) thinks in a way that copes with science.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
(I do not claim that there is something directly wrong with the results the
|
|||
|
sciences gives us. They work very good, much better than results within
|
|||
|
philosophy some might say. But the problem here lies in how these results
|
|||
|
are used and, more importantly, how science is obeyed as the almighty truth
|
|||
|
and the correct method to gain all knowledge there is in this world.)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
I am not saying that such a thing as Christianity is more 'healthy' than
|
|||
|
Science, merely because it has a holistic view of the world. Nor am I
|
|||
|
saying that the views in Science and Religion ought to be mixed, because
|
|||
|
that would just lead to greater confusion (like the conjunction of
|
|||
|
Children/Dad/Mom). I am looking for a switch in our way of thinking - as
|
|||
|
said, a form of paradigm-switch.
|
|||
|
The paradigm I have in mind is a special one. Consider this well-known
|
|||
|
illustration:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
_____
|
|||
|
______/ . \
|
|||
|
/______ I
|
|||
|
\_______ <
|
|||
|
\ / (the 'duck-rabbit')
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
While some people see a duck, others see a rabbit. A paradigm-switch
|
|||
|
could be seen as switching from one gestalt to the other. An economist who
|
|||
|
in the beginning thought that money was the sole solution to all problems,
|
|||
|
and then came to understand that money does not help at all, could be said
|
|||
|
to perform a switch in paradigm.
|
|||
|
However, it is not that a narrow-minded view is a duck, and a holistic
|
|||
|
view is a rabbit. The holistic view is more complicated. The economist who
|
|||
|
switched from the duck (money rules) to the rabbit (money sucks) has not
|
|||
|
accomplished what I am looking for. If he, instead, came to see (in the
|
|||
|
intellectual sense) the duck-rabbit as an 'illustration that is not simply a
|
|||
|
duck, not a rabbit, but both - but yet a pretty bad picture of a REAL rabbit
|
|||
|
and a REAL duck'- then he is on the right track.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
But, then, how on Earth are we going to accomplish this mission - how are
|
|||
|
we to make the people think, and see the world, in a different way? Those
|
|||
|
who claims that this is impossible, that we cannot demand the people to
|
|||
|
begin pondering philosophical mumbo-jumbo while the world is falling apart,
|
|||
|
are wrong. This is not some unreachable utopia. The only reason why this
|
|||
|
idea might sound strange in some ears is because it deals with a part of our
|
|||
|
world that is clearly understated: the intellect. If we are able to change
|
|||
|
the world around us with science, and develop science, why should we not be
|
|||
|
able to change, and develop, our intellect?
|
|||
|
Of course, it is more hard to present intellectual thoughts than
|
|||
|
empirical 'proofs.' This essay shows this; the view I am trying to put out
|
|||
|
is not sparkling clear, yet. The one who builds a castle need not to prove
|
|||
|
what he has accomplished. He may just point at his construction and say
|
|||
|
'Look! I have built this magnificent piece of housing!' while the one who
|
|||
|
builds an intellectual castle in his mind, however, will have a hard time
|
|||
|
proving that he has made any kind of 'progress.' But this is not to say that
|
|||
|
it is, per se, a mission impossible.
|
|||
|
We need not to form a radical terrorist group that, 'for the sake of
|
|||
|
humanity,' demands the hostages to read certain philosophical books (even
|
|||
|
though it is a very appealing thought) if they want to avoid being shot.
|
|||
|
What we need is a intellectual Sister, that takes the other family members
|
|||
|
out of the house and shows them the world in a new light. This Sister could
|
|||
|
be a philosopher that is dedicated to a more active intellectual life, that
|
|||
|
actually tries to use her mind in a more pragmatic sense. This is no
|
|||
|
impossible character - she is just not really around today. But she could be
|
|||
|
in the future, presenting the new paradigm without any kind of modest mercy.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
(The term 'philosopher' is a bit misleading because some of those
|
|||
|
'philosophers' that are around nowadays are not interested in developing
|
|||
|
their intellectual capacity, just their knowledge. For example, mere
|
|||
|
knowledge in the inner depths of modal logic will not take us to the goal
|
|||
|
I am trying to describe.)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
However, exactly what this new paradigm would consist of, what the
|
|||
|
'modern thinker' would ponder, how she would solve her problems - this I
|
|||
|
cannot answer. I simply hope that more people accepts this view, and begins
|
|||
|
to consider their situation from a different angle, which is not
|
|||
|
unreachable. This new angle ought to be understandable in broad principle
|
|||
|
by everyone, not just a few philosophers. When that happens, we should all
|
|||
|
be able to take part in the discussion on how to solve the real problems,
|
|||
|
and not just merely moan about the small ones.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
|
|||
|
This space for rent! Yes! Yes! Yes! NO!
|
|||
|
I can live without you, but not without THE STASH +46-13-READINDEX
|
|||
|
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
A critic is a man who knows the way, but can't drive the car.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
uXu #299 Underground eXperts United 1996 uXu #299
|
|||
|
Call METALLAND SOUTHWEST -> +1-713-468-5802
|
|||
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|