Digital Underground - uXu - Underground eXperts United #uxu-299

### ### ### ### ### #### ### ### ### #### ### ### ##### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ##### ### ### ########## ### ### ########## ### ### ### ### 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

← Svenska e-zines (1990-2008)