Three realizations

Posted: December 19, 2005 at 11:59 pm in journal, people

Last week, after getting back from the work trip to DC, I went to a holiday party hosted by Chris Heuer, organizer of BrainJams. I figured I’d stop by, chat with a few people, and head home.

Instead, I ended up in this fascinating conversation with Brian of CivicEvolution (thus meeting the challenge from my friend Adam to “Have a really amazing conversation”). We talked about what I’ve been thinking about, and what he’s been working on (although I haven’t had a chance to read his paper yet), and steadily drifted further and further afield, discussing the nature of reality and whether our lives have a plan in advance or only in retrospect.

Three things struck me in the conversation that I want to record here:

  1. We were talking about our shared belief that everybody lives in a different reality, and he asked me how I had come to believe in different realities. Which was a really good question. It’s so obvious to me at this point that we each have our own reality, and yet it’s not apparent to most people. So what makes me different?

    I thought about it for a few seconds and came up with a plausible answer, that being the fact that my childhood was spent in a suburban bastion of white Republican Christian values. Thanks to my parents, I grew up decidedly liberal and non-religious. But I was surrounded by people who lived in a fundamentally different world than I did; for instance, I spent my senior year of high school trying to convince some friends that evolution made more sense than creationism. Not being part of the mainstream, I think my choices were either (a) admit I was wrong (never!) or (b) convince myself that my reality was as valid as theirs, and the rest flowed from there. It’s a theory, at least. The question certainly got me thinking.

  2. We were talking about the power of language – he used the example of “Imagine a boat sailing on the sea”, and how that immediately evoked a detailed picture in each of our minds, and how amazing was it that seven words could do that. But the interesting thing to me, picking up on my filling in the blanks post, was how people fill in their own ideas – he might be imagining a yacht where I’m thinking of a square-rigger, he might be thinking of a stormy sea where I’m thinking of a calm one, etc. Language is powerful, but ambiguous. And it’s deceptively ambiguous because it is often not clear when there is a mismatch between two people’s expectations regarding a given set of words.

    Which helped me to answer another good question of his, which was how I was planning to relate the high-falutin’ philosophical stuff of my blog to the real world, a question I’ve been struggling with for a while. I think the powerful ambiguity of language is a hint. These ideas about conflicting realities and even Bruno Latour all inter-relate in this concept of diplomacy, of translating between different cultures and realities. Taken to the extreme, language ambiguity entails the 600 page specifications that the military uses to capture its requirements. But I feel like there’s an intermediate level which can be filled by those of us who understand multiple frames of mind and can translate readily between them. I’m not sure exactly what that role of techno-cultural translator is yet, whether it’s in management or mediation or something else, but I think that may be the productive intersection of my philosophy and the real world. Now I just need to define what that means.

  3. At one point, we started talking about the Rapture, and how true believers are untrustworthy because if they really believe the world will end in this generation, they will act differently than if they really believed in the long-term future. I pushed back a bit here, because I thought that Christians weren’t the only ones who thought that way, but my thoughts didn’t crystallize until the next day when another friend of mine mentioned Peak Oil, and I realized it wasn’t just religious folks who believed in the imminent end of the world (or at least of life-as-we-know-it). Peak Oil is the Rapture equivalent for environmentalists. The Singularity is the Rapture equivalent for techno-futurists. The capitalists talk about The End of History. Each of these groups has their own myth of the imminence of the End Times.

    What is the attraction of the End Times? Why do so many people believe in it? Why do we have such a hard time really believing in the Long Now? I think it’s because we want to believe that we are special, that our lives mean more than others. If we are witness to the End Times, it is clear that we are significant, we are at the cusp of history. And that’s an attractive feeling. Everybody wants to feel like they matter.

    It’s also a testament to the power that the single reality concept holds over people. The End Times (whichever one you believe in) confirms one’s reality as being the correct one, the only one that matters. If Jesus appears, blowing the Last Trump, it would be hard to argue that Christianity is only one of a number of religious options. Each End Times scenario is the ultimate “I told you so”.

    While I can see the attraction of the End Times, I think I prefer Latour’s outlook, where instead of being special because everything has collapsed to a single reality (Rapture or Singularity or whatever), we are part of an ever-growing, ever-learning collective. We face obstacles, we learn from them and adjust to them, and we go on. Humans have been around for a long time, and while it’s tempting to think that we are the apotheosis of evolution, a hundred years from now folks will be mocking us the same way we mock the scientists who said they understood everything in the universe five years before quantum mechanics was discovered.

4 Responses to “Three realizations”

  1. jofishicus Says:

    I like number 3. That’s interesting. Will have to think about it more. I think there’s something about the fact that within any given paradigm (in the full, Kuhn sense of the word) there are these end-events, but as soon as you realize that there is no overarching theory that answers everything, then there are other factors that come to dominate the equation and so they don’t occur. So the singularity, for example, is very very techno-focused, and doesn’t think about the fact that actually there are a bunch of social factors and events such that it’s not that that particular equation in question doesn’t work, but rather that it’s unimportant. (An easy example: peak oil trumps singularity. It’s outside the paradigm, messes up all the equation. And probably we can show that singularity trumps peak oil, but that’s a bit harder.) Does that make any sense?

    And (c) They’re wrong. never occured to you? WTF, mate?

  2. Eric Says:

    Singularity trumps peak oil because nano nano nano means infinite energy, so peak oil doesn’t matter. Or something like that.

    And, sure, (c) tends to be what I think, but it didn’t matter if I thought they were wrong – their worldview was internally self-consistent, and they fought off and/or ignored anything that could possibly challenge that worldview. A lesson which is still relevant to me today – to change somebody’s mind, it’s almost useless to tell them their worldview is wrong – I have to understand their worldview from the inside, and convince them using their own terminology (e.g. using parables from the Bible to talk with fundamentalists).

  3. Brian Sullivan Says:

    You got some very good aspects of the conversation. (And you write well.)

    WRT 3, I like the analysis that reaching a singularity is great for the believer as the ultimate confirmation-in religion, in doomsday scenarios and maybe in the Iraq war.

    If Bush/neocons manage to succeed does that justify the lies? Are they not lies because the ends justifies the means?

    Do we know they won’t succeed? When does that knowledge become hope or interference? If there are multiple realities, is there a plane in which these realities are battling for dominance? Does this battle for dominance justify sabotage?

    Isn’t this really what the neocons want more than anything, the unbridled right to create reality as they see fit? (This would explain the synergy between neocons and evangelicals) Is our resistance justified? Can it ever be justified to a true believer?

    Can we show that one reality is better than another? I hope so!

  4. Eric Nehrlich, Unrepentant Generalist || The Art of Conversation || July || 2006 Says:

    […] Conversation is a topic near and dear to my heart. Besides the post listed above, I have posts about the recipe for a good conversation, a late-night conversation with a friend, a surprisingly stimulating conversation at a party, thoughts on conversational alignment, and thoughts on the connections necessary for conversation. And those are only the posts I can remember off the top of my head. I would obviously love to understand better what leads to a good conversation. And looking back over those posts, I think perhaps the concept of flow is a good place to start. […]

Leave a Reply

RSS feed

LinkedIn profile

Twitter

New post inspired by @michaeldila - is computing absorbing humanity or vice versa? nehrlich.com/blog/2014/12/2…

Recent Posts

  • The challenge of humanity
  • The Generalist Is In
  • Challenging oneself
  • Instigating unhappiness
  • There are no shortcuts
  • Random Posts

  • Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand
  • On Whidbey
  • The Apprentice
  • Time Perspectives of Philip Zimbardo
  • Management by conversation


  • Archives

  • Categories