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
|
||
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|