Metaphysic Storm

After explaining to my friend Sparkbaby, that I’m either crazy or a human agency is interacting with me covertly, she stated that the reason I think that it can’t be the supernatural is because of my western-logic biases. She sent me an excerpt from “Monocultures of the Mind” By Vandana Shiva, which posits that the scientific label is used to suppress and exterminate alternative knowledges.

Here is the excerpt:

IN ARGENTINA, when the dominant political system faces dissent, it responds by making the dissidents disappear. The ‘desparacidos’ or the disappeared dissidents share the fate of local knowledge systems throughout the world, which have been conquered through the politics of disappearance, not the politics of debate and dialogue.

The disappearance of local knowledge through its interaction with the dominant western knowledge takes place at many levels, through many steps. First, local knowledge is made to disappear by simply not seeing it, by negating its very existence. This is very easy in the distant gaze of the globalising dominant system. The western systems of knowledge have generally been viewed as universal. However, the dominant system is also a local system, with its social basis in a particular culture, class and gender. It is not universal in an epistemological sense. It is merely the globalised version of a very local and parochial tradition. Emerging from a dominating and colonizing culture, modern knowledge systems are themselves colonizing.

The knowledge and power nexus is inherent in the dominant system because, as a conceptual framework, it is associated with a set of values based on power which emerged with the rise of commercial capitalism. It generates inequalities and domination by the way such knowledge is generated and structured, the way it is legitimized and alternatives are delegitimized, and by the way in which such knowledge transforms nature and society. Power is also built into the perspective which views the dominant system not as a globalised local tradition, but as a universal tradition, inherently superior to local systems. However, the dominant system is also the product of a particular culture.

As Harding observes:
We can now discern the effects of these cultural markings in the discrepancies between the methods of knowing and the interpretations of the world provided by the creators of modern western culture and those characteristics of the rest of us. Western culture’s favorite beliefs mirror in sometimes clear and sometimes distorting ways not the world as it is or as we might want it to be, but the social projects of their historically identifiable creators. The universal/local dichotomy is misplaced when applied to the western and indigenous traditions of knowledge, because the western is a local tradition which has been spread world wide through intellectual colonization.

The universal would spread in openness. The globalising local spreads by violence and misrepresentation. The first level of violence unleashed on local systems of knowledge is to not see them as knowledge. This invisibility is the first reason why local systems collapse without trial and test when confronted with the knowledge of the dominant west. The distance itself removes local systems from perception. When local knowledge does appear in the field of the globalising vision, it is made to disappear by denying it the status of a systematic knowledge, and assigning it the adjectives ‘primitive’ and ‘unscientific’. Correspondingly, the western system is assumed to be uniquely ’scientific’ and universal. The prefix ’scientific’ for the modern systems, and ‘unscientific’ for the traditional knowledge systems has, however, less to do with knowledge and more to do with power. The models of modern science which have encouraged these perceptions were derived less from familiarity with actual scientific practice, and more from familiarity with idealised versions of which gave science a special epistemological status. Positivism, verificationism, falsificationism were all based on the assumption that unlike. traditional, local beliefs of the world, which are socially constructed, modern scientific knowledge was thought to be determined without social mediation Scientists, in accordance with an abstract scientific method, were viewed as putting forward statements corresponding to the realities of a directly observable world. The theoretical concepts in their discourse were in principle seen as reducible to directly verifiable observational, claims; Jew trends in the philosophy and sociology of science challenged the positivist assumptions, but did not challenge the assumed superiority of - western systems. Thus, Kuhn, who has shown that science is not nearly as open as is popularly thought, and is the result of the commitment of a specialist community of scientists to presupposed metaphors and paradigms which determine the meaning of constituent terms and concepts, still holds that modern ‘paradigmatic’. knowledge, is superior to pre-paradigmatic knowledge which represents a kind of primitive state of knowing.

Horton, who has argued against the dominant view of dominant knowledge, still speaks of the ’superior cognitive powers’ of the modes of thought of the modern scientific culture which constitute forms of explanation, prediction and control of a power unrivaled in any time and place. This cognitive superiority in his view arises from the ‘openness’ of modern scientific thinking and the ‘closure’ of traditional knowledge. As he interprets it, ‘In traditional cultures there is no developed awareness of alternatives to the established body of theoretical levels, whereas in the scientifically oriented cultures, such an awareness is highly developed.’ However, the historical experience of non-western culture suggests that it is the western systems of knowledge which are blind to alternatives. The ’scientific’ label assigns a kind of sacred ness or social immunity to the western system. By elevating itself above society and other, knowledge systems and by simultaneously excuding other knowledge systems from the domain of reliable and systematic knowledge, the dominant system creates its exclusive monopoly. Paradoxically, it is the knowledge systems which are considered most open, that are, in reality, closed to scrutiny and evaluation. Modern western science is not to be evaluated`, it ~ .merely to be accepted. As Sandra Harding has said:

Neither God nor tradition is privileged with the same credibility as scientific rationality in modern cultures…. The project that science’s sacredness makes taboo is the examination of science in just the ways any other institution or set of social practices can be examined.
The Cracks of Fragmentation . .

Over and above rendering local knowledge invisible by declaring it non-existent or illegitimate, the dominant system also makes alternatives disappear by erasing and destroying the reality which they-’attempt to represent. The fragmented linearity of the dominant knowledge disrupts the integrations between systems. Local knowledge slips through the cracks of fragmentation. It is eclipsed along with the world to which it relates. Dominant scientific knowledge thus breeds a monoculture of the mind by making space for local alternatives disappear, very much like monocultures of introduced plant varieties leading to the displacement and destruction of local diversity. Dominant knowledge, also destroys the very conditions for alternatives to exist, very much like the introduction of monocultures destroying the very conditions for diverse species to exist

I responded with:

I think the essay is extremely vague. She sounds like she is more upset at the Higher Educational system than science in and of itself. I have no idea why she thinks that the “science world” cares about gender, especially when Lisa Randall is the Einstein of our day. I don’t even know what she means by “local knowledge”. The only bias I think science has, and justifiably so, is that there is only one truth to reality and it is universal. If that isn’t true and reality isn’t universal and consistent, the pursuit of knowledge in any form is only for the moment and thus holds no ground.

Science is a method, not a monopoly of knowledge. Using the method one first gathers data as objectively as possible. In the past it was more difficult than today because we had less objective devices such as the scale, analog watch and ruler. Now we have digital film senors and Geiger counters. Then hypothesis and predictions are made mostly in an effort to disprove the hypothesis. The results are then published so the experiments can be repeated by others which reduces the possibility of logical errors from the first experimenter who could have selectively created experiments to see what they wanted to see. This is what Einstein meant when he said “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” There simply isn’t a better way to achieve knowledge that’s free from bias, superstition or unfounded reason.

“Neither God nor tradition is privileged with the same credibility as scientific rationality in modern cultures”

That’s complete nonsense. On this planet 5 billion people give “god” more credibility than the ground they walk on. The reason that “rational modern culture” doesn’t credit god is because the concept of god was created without the possibility of being able to prove it false. All the reasons for believing in a specific god come from “special” books that have sections repeatedly proven false, claims made are so outstanding it would require verification for legitimate belief or are saturated in opinion as fact.

Tradition is privileged, that’s what makes it tradition. No one in “scientific rational modern culture” will debate that tradition has extreme credibility in humanity. But the claims that are fostered by tradition are no more credible than a day dream that was just introduced to “our knowledge system”. The amount of time a belief or the amount of people participating in a tradition has no baring on whether the claims within tradition are true or not.

Many people feel disenfranchised by the scientific community. I for one love to ponder the outer limits of possibility, from the microscopic uncertainty principle and what I feel result in unjustified claims by science because of it, to the very shape of the universe itself. Not many scientists would take my thoughts on the subjects seriously because I don’t have the credentials and both arenas are outside the bounds of testability by their very nature. That’s why those areas of science are called “Theoretical” and is why I actually am a justifiable contributer because of my arena, Philosophy. The scientists in the lab that study the outer limits are doing so because of the many unexpected benefits the study reveals. Who would have ever guessed that riding an elevator to the lab while watching a watch would have turned into E=MC2? Scientists themselves even feel a level of disenfranchisement. There is far too much knowledge for anyone person to know. That’s why scientists have become extremely specialized. Luckily they all are forced to publish if they want to be considered legitimate. The internet has enabled anyone to publish thereby democratizing all “knowledge systems”.

But let’s get back to my local knowledge system, the reason you sent me this. I don’t have enough data to make conclusions about the things happening to me. Therefor I’ve been living in a nightmare storm of speculation. If I came to a conclusion it would be via a leap of faith. All I know for sure is that I did not move the paintings on the wall and it seems as though some agency has studied and manipulated me for quite some time…

While responding to Sparkbaby I went to wikipedia to reread what the consensuses of what the scientific method is. There I found a great animation of a horse and how it smashed the belief that a horse’s legs are splayed when galloping. “Belief can alter observations; those with a particular belief will often see things as reinforcing their belief, even if they do not.” - Ludwik Fleck. I’ve often asked myself if I’m fantasizing the improbable events that happen in my life because of my search for anomalies. In the popular documentary “What the bleep do we know - down the rabbit hole” Dr. Joseph Dispenza stated that he makes reality with thought power. Could I have created an actual external intelligence by mere will alone? I think it’s far more likely that I’m just plain old crazy than I made a supernatural covert agency manifested through people.
Sparkbaby replied:

I don’t know where you got anything about the higher education system in this essay. She’s talking more about what is considered “knowledge” and what is considered “superstition”. When she talks about local knowledge she’s talking about knowledge that is embedded in the local areas traditions and that knowledge base. These things are considered superstition by western science because they are not learned through the western scientific method or because they sit outside of the western science model of what is true and what is not worth studying.

Also, I totally agree with that quote about God and science and I think what you said in the beginning of this email is exactly why: “The only bias I think science has, and justifiably so, is that there is only one truth to reality and it is universal.” The idea that truth is universal is ridiculous to me, any cop will tell you if you stop ten people that witnessed a crime you will get ten different stories. That’s because truth is subjective. You see the world around you through your own lens of background and experience. Therefore your lens and mine are extremely different and we’re apt to describe totally different things even if we’re experiencing the same incident. Neither of us is necessarily wrong either. The fact that science doesn’t take this into consideration at all (like I said in our conversation scientists are people and they read results through their own lens) is a major flaw, especially considering that it claims to be able to be unbiased.

I replied:

“The idea that truth is universal is ridiculous to me, any cop will tell you if you stop ten people that witnessed a crime you will get ten different stories.”

One thing happened and that thing is everyones reality, regardless of their experience of it. The person either pulled the trigger or did not. If half the people saw no trigger being pulled and the other saw it being pulled, half of the witnesses are wrong. Eastern logic claims that all the witnesses are right. That belief is called fuzzy logic, the conviction that X does not equal X. If X does not equal X, then there is no use discussing truth, because it also doesn’t exist. If truth doesn’t exist, knowledge is nothing. The “Eastern knowledge system” reveled when western scientists declared that a partical is nowhere until it is observed. They came to this conclusion because of the natural limits of our power of observation (the uncertainty principle). So, if you can believeit, it looks like I agree with you a little bit. The scientific knowledge systems suffer from a bit of blind arrogance. However, the tree falling in the woods makes a sound whether there is someone to hear it or not. And just because we will never be able to know how fast the bullet is traveling at the very instant it is in flight doesn’t mean that it has no real speed. The speed is just unknowable unless your a sizzling flee on it’s tip.

I inferred the higher educational system because that’s where all the scientists are or come from. The only thing from her essay that rang true to me was that there is a certain level of class bias. If one doesn’t have the money or credit there’s very little hope of them ever contributing to the scientific community because they’ll never be able to step foot in the university door. However the internet has leveled the playing field somewhat. Although if one doesn’t have the access to a gene sequencer, radio telescope array, particle accelerator or electro-magnetic microscope, local personal research is rather left in the dark. Science gets lost at the quantum level, but local knowledge can’t even get close to the quantum world…

At least “local knowledge systems” don’t run the risk of annihilating the planet by creating a black hole like the atom smashers do. Scott Adam’s hit it on the head with, “I don’t know how you ever get comfortable with any level of risk of destroying the universe. If you were to do an expected value calculation, multiplying the tiny risk times the potential cost, it would still come out infinitely expensive.”

The next day my friend from Russa, Miroslave, met me at the gallery. He gave me a copy of a drawing he just did. As you can see it is of a group of horses flying. The gallery rep was talking to him and turned on her radio. The first thing that radiated from the speaker was the DJ. He said, “Today we have a Russian serenade.” The rep looked at me and said, “Did you hear that? What are the odds.” I responded, “I hear it every day.” Afterwards I went to the movie store. There was a preview running of the movie “Mist” by Steven King. An actor said, “I don’t know if it’s man made or natural, but it’s definitely not supernatural”. Another actor responded, “But what if it is supernatural”. He responded, “Well then, the joke would be on me”. I of course was compelled to rent it. The movie has disappeared, a first for me. I think it got lost on the way home.

Yesterday I saw a group of people walking down the street with 8s on the front of their shirts. The symbol of infinity is a magnet to my eyes. On the back of their shirts it said, “There is a better way of gaining knowledge, run an experiment.” But what happens when the best you can do is ask the 8 ball? Perhaps I and the atom smashers should just be happy knowing not.

Comments RSS