The sentient beholder's contribution to the creation of reality

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

I just spent some time last week reading about the Sokal Affair, where prominent physicist Alan Sokal published a rambling, incoherent paper in a leading journal of postmodern philosophy, and declared all of postmodern philosophy to be intellectual chicanery when he confessed to it. Now I'm not an avid follower of all the drama that goes down in the world of academic philosophy and academe in general, but I've known people who are of that world, including a few who are sold on postmodernism (or at least used to be), and I have a general idea of what the philosophical movement entails (or at least did in its heyday).

Postmodernism basically says that truth is socially constructed, that what any of us take for granted as true is simply a function of what we've been taught and whose company we've kept. From what I gather, a lot of the charges against postmodernism and its defenders in academe have been led by scientists, who object to postmodernists denigrating scientific truth on these same grounds. Scientific truths, they say, are not agreed upon by social convention -- they're arrived at by testing, using tests that anyone could theoretically perform and witness the results for themselves. Yeah, things get murky and "witness" gets tenuous when you're talking about proxies for, and lengthy convoluted extensions of, our sensory organs, which few know how to use, and whose raw data is not easy to interpret. But point is that all people seem to inhabit a common physical world with common properties that don't really vary from person to person.

I'm with the scientists -- I think there is a physical world that is common to all people and other sentient beings on earth. I think postmodernists who sought to deny this were definitely applying their philosophy's foundational principle incorrectly. But I do think they have a point, which merits further investigation: I think there is a degree to which our sentient beholding of the physical world creates reality. That is to say, there is a real contribution to "reality" that is made by our first-person experience of it. By extension, since so much of our first person experience of the world involves trying to understand and relate to the way others experience the world, I think our social interactions also play a major role in defining what is real.

I've always been a big fan of Kant's notion of things-in-themselves (the physical "outside" world common to us all) being fundamentally inaccessible to us, because our beholding of them turns them into, simply, things. Plato's Cave is another good analogy that essentially says the same thing. Rather than trying to undermine the idea that some truths are testable and true for us all, I think postmodernists should try to explore the borderlands of where "patently true for us all" leaves off, and "not necessarily true for us all" begins. They should work on identifying those apparent truths whose only real appeal is that they are socially useful. Not to say that these ought to be thrown away, but that they are negotiable and flexible, while others ("the sky is blue") are really not.

Thoughts?

 

[L2R]

as paradoxical as it sounds, i think it is both.
discovery = creativity

i think it works something like
system 1 thinking (fast intuition) creates while system 2 thinking (slow rationality) discovers.
discoveries made in system 2 can change the predisposition of system 1 thoughts (which work unconsciously through various such dispositions towards certain specific stimuli), thereby influencing the creative step.

 

[P A]

Postmodernism basically says that truth is socially constructed, that what any of us take for granted as true is simply a function of what we've been taught and whose company we've kept.

I was under the impression that postmodernism was a loose aggregate of various literary, architectural, epistemological, social-theoretical, and artistic reactions to and critiques of the predominate motifs encountered in analogous modernistic media and trends.

The oft-repeated 'overarching' themes of metanarrative skepticism and moral/epistemological relativism inherent within postmodern works are, in my opinion, deliberately misconstrued and over-stated in their relevance when pandering to a broad audience in dire need of a simple answer to a deceivingly simple question (What in tarnation is postmodernism, anyway?) To get at the heart of what an entire artistic era's body of work implies as a unit, one probably requires more than a handful of catchy buzzwords, a blurb, a concise paragraph, an accessible monograph, or even a scholarly essay. If I ever think about it at all (which event, to be completely honest, is a rarity) I prefer to read/think about 'postmodernism' as a convenient, catch-all memeword-thing that is used by pretentious literary theorists and art scholars to refer to works published after the 1940s or so whose generic focus was a profound dissatisfaction with modernism. I also like to remind myself that the cliche of postpostpost-whatever has a much longer history than we are typically led to believe. The first known occurrence of the word 'postmodern' was in the 1870s. That's right - we've been embedded in this vain, hipster-post-post-everything culture since the nineteenth freaking century.

Anywho...have you ever read any of Michel Foucault's essays or historical analyses? I think that, as a champion and veritable mascot of postmodern social theory, his work is particularly relevant here, both to the question of whether and to what extent certain unquestioned beliefs (even ones - for Foucault, especially ones - that find tentative justification in the social and medical sciences) are engineered by our various societal apparati and to the issue of what sort of epistemology 'postmodernism/poststructuralism' actually espouses with any degree of internal consistency.

 

[rangrz]

literary theorists

I object to that term and similar ones. Literary theory, film theory, gender theory, etc, etc. ARE NOT THEORIES in the usual meaning. At best they each paper is a hypothesis, albeit one which can't be tested and is thus absurd anyways. But these um, disciplines? Are not theories. They make no meaningful predictions about sweet fuck all, can not be refuted or disproved even in principle, describes nothing that is real, and lack all the rigor that one expects. Electroweak theory is a theory. Germ theory is a theory, what academics in the humanities do is not in any way similar.

 

[P A]

^Fair enough. But I think you're overgeneralizing the definition of 'scientific theory' and conflating a technical term with a more, sweeping generic definition. Pay particular heed to entry 4:

"the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory."

 

[panic in paradise]

It is a shame, there is so much more to life, science and 'science theory' was created to help man understand himself and better live amongst, reality. Not for man to create and establish for himself, a reality.

 

[Quantum Perception]

This parallels some of the principles of what is becoming known as meta-modernism. Meta here coming from Plato's Metaxy, meaning an oscillation in between post-modern and modern attitudes.

 

[rangrz]

^Fair enough. But I think you're overgeneralizing the definition of 'scientific theory' and conflating a technical term with a more, sweeping generic definition. Pay particular heed to entry 4:

"the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory."

Music theory tho is very rigorous and formalized. It's an abstraction that allows one to represent and describe sounds, and what sequences of sounds are or are not music. Not unlike theories in mathematics and computation. (What is or is not a transcendental number?) Or even the physical sciences (What is or is not a lepton?)

I suppose you can take the same approach to a lot the arts, but I am arguing that most of what is called <name of art> theory fails to do such, and as I said before, lacks the rigor and formalism needed to be a theory. Music theory however does have those qualities.

I'm don't think "creation of reality" is a meaningful statement. You can't go about constructing unreality, in the sense, everything which exists is reality, and if you construct something, it necessarily exists and had to a) be possible b) be constructed from things which already exist. On the other hand, simply having poor perception of reality or denying it in no way changes the fact it exists as it does. (Like Sokal quipped, if you posit that gravity is a social construct that you deny, you are welcome to test this theory from my 21st story balcony).

You can not construct reality from unreality, even in principle and thus the statement means precisely nothing.

 

[P A]

In common usage, the word 'theory' doesn't mean what you claim it does. You can object to the OED's prescriptions and the average English speaker's usage all you like, but you'll just be blowing more (linguistic) hot air.

cf. homonyms, extension, intension, and definition

 

[rangrz]

^

Even in common usage. "My theory is he is in for the money." Is that the reason that guy is doing X is because he wants to get paid for it, and not for an underlying ethical, aesthetic, or other immaterial purpose. Is still, in principle, something that can be correct or incorrect in some manner, and if we could read minds for e.g. it could be falsified.

The rest of the stuff I said is not linguistic argument, and I am assuming you where you not addressing it.

 

[P A]

and I am assuming you where you not addressing it [sic]

It simply wasn't to the point. We're talking about the relative merit of the use of a particular word, which is a principally linguistic topic.

My theory is he is in for the money

We appear to have very different Wernicke's areas, my friend. When someone turns the phrase "My theory is X" in everyday conversation, I usually take it to be an expression of loose speculation, not of a rigorous formal conjecture to be followed by an empirical investigation nor a lengthy proof.

Funnily enough, you remind me of American Christian lobbyists campaigning for the introduction of creationist mythology into the standard public science curriculum who insistently abuse and misuse the word 'theory,' conflating everyday usage with the accepted scientific terminology for the sole sake of obfuscation of obvious truths. You seem to be performing the exact inverse process, eclipsing the general, common definition with the myopic terminological one.

 

[rangrz]

Oh now now, it's fun to obfuscate things when the starting premise is "My subjective experience is equivalent to objective reality". Perhaps I am being too quick to judge the concept as absurd? But I'll admit, yes, I was going for "argument to clumsy notation."

 

[yagecero]

As someone that has studied literary theory, language, linguistics and education for quite some time, I can definitely say that I can see where you're coming from, to a degree, rangrz. But I think being a little more open minded may be of more benefit to you, too. Sure, Humanities is littered with a lot of bullshit, and you're right in suggesting that some "theories" don't particularly benefit the species.

Post-structuralism (in linguistics) has more to do with structuralism than post-modernism (which can make for good literature, but be a real wank when it comes to theory), and they're both concerned with semiotics and the linguistic sign.

I wouldn't think someone so scientific would suggest that linguistic studies are unwarranted or too airy?

And apart from the aforementioned music and linguistics, I definitely think that philosophical, anthropological and sociological studies have helped us move forward, and made us far more open minded, in regard to the human condition.

To the OP: I think we have some part to play, but the amount by which we can affect change in our experience differs between people.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

Music theory tho is very rigorous and formalized. It's an abstraction that allows one to represent and describe sounds, and what sequences of sounds are or are not music. Not unlike theories in mathematics and computation. (What is or is not a transcendental number?) Or even the physical sciences (What is or is not a lepton?)

I suppose you can take the same approach to a lot the arts, but I am arguing that most of what is called <name of art> theory fails to do such, and as I said before, lacks the rigor and formalism needed to be a theory. Music theory however does have those qualities.

I'm out of my element in this discussion, but it seems to me that "theory" refers more to the attempt to model the concrete using words and symbols, than the result. Yes, some theories and theorists have done a much more better job modeling their subject of interest in such a way that manipulating their model serves as a reliable guide for manipulating the things that the model models. But if you're modeling the concrete (things, phenomena) using the abstract (words, symbols), you're theorizing, period the end. Just like there is good and bad cooking, good and bad Romanization of foreign scripts, and good and bad historical reenactment, there is good and bad theory. The merit of any theory is a function of how well learning it empowers the learner to affect changes in the phenomena verbalized / symbolized.

Just because one theory of something does not turn out to be very good, does not mean that all theories of that subject necessarily fail, or that that subject doesn't lend itself to theory. I'm not saying you were necessarily implying this, but I feel it bears mentioning. Yes, I'll grant you that for very hard-nosed, practical, concrete thinkers, the natural sciences are easier to theorize about than the humanities, because the theories will be easier to test. But this says more about what certain people prefer to think about, than it does about the general application of theory to human knowledge.

I'm don't think "creation of reality" is a meaningful statement. You can't go about constructing unreality, in the sense, everything which exists is reality, and if you construct something, it necessarily exists and had to a) be possible b) be constructed from things which already exist.

What about imagination? I don't think you'll convince many fantasy writers, for example, that it's impossible to construct unreality.

On the other hand, simply having poor perception of reality or denying it in no way changes the fact it exists as it does. (Like Sokal quipped, if you posit that gravity is a social construct that you deny, you are welcome to test this theory from my 21st story balcony).

I never advocated denying reality or having a poor perception of it. Perhaps "construct" is a poor choice of words here. The gist of my idea here is that sentient beholding is part of what makes something real and extant. For example, there may very well be as-yet unexplored ancient Egyptian tombs. But until an explorer finds a hint in an artifact or an ancient codex that inspires him to search, the tomb for all intents and purposes isn't real.

What I'm driving at is, objectivity and the removal of the human observer from inquiry into the world -- modeling the world with the human observer and all his human failings removed from the equation -- is methodologically useful for achieving some ends. But if the whole point of inquiry is to advance the wellbeing of humanity and other sentient beings on Earth, then discounting the subjective human experience (and how it varies from person to person) as a matter of principle in all serious inquiries is kind of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

 

[-=SS=-]

Euurgh.. I'm going to relegate myself to a corner by saying that intellectual philosophical discussions tend to just be pointless word games that lead to nowhere/around in circles and that academic philosophy in the 21st century isn't really philosophy at all but just inane gobshite. I see academic proponents of this type of semantic philosophy to be just like clergy men of religions.. they talk an awful lot but when it comes down to it they really know absolutely bugger all about reality itself. I'm not berating anyone in this thread, I'm just saying I have only one thing to contribute; philosophy shouldn't be carried out with words but with ones own actions.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

^ What did academic philosophers in days gone by do right that one nowadays do wrong?

 

[panic in paradise]

What about imagination? I don't think you'll convince many fantasy writers, for example, that it's impossible to construct unreality.

In a mutual shared sense, seems unreality is more common then reality, amongst ourselves.

What is the reality of a 'medium rare steak'? There is a standard, set by consistent actions and results judged by a random individuals instinctual, acquired taste, and emotional state.

... Only nothing can always be the same, as there is always something that anything is subjective to, which changes everything else into a form thought to be; 'how it is now, is how it always is to be', to someone at first experience.

 

[-=SS=-]

^ What did academic philosophers in days gone by do right that one nowadays do wrong?

Well I think life was tougher for philosophers of past era's.. today we're incredibly insulated from the hard truths of life and death, and it seems to me anyway that modern philosophers have a very armchair type of philosophizing going on.. just regurgitating what's already been said and playing around with language and concept structures in an attempt to create something new and meaningful (much like today's art incidentally). I don know, modern philosophy just seems to be missing the point IMHO.. it's too wrapped up in word games and doesn't get down to the real brass tacks of reality :/

 

[rangrz]

What about imagination? I don't think you'll convince many fantasy writers, for example, that it's impossible to construct unreality.

Separate what type of "thing" is a story from it's semantic content. We are not doing analysis of the same dimensions/some function thereof.

 

[panic in paradise]

Well I think life was tougher for philosophers of past era's.. today we're incredibly insulated from the hard truths of life and death, and it seems to me anyway that modern philosophers have a very armchair type of philosophizing going on.. just regurgitating what's already been said and playing around with language and concept structures in an attempt to create something new and meaningful (much like today's art incidentally). I don know, modern philosophy just seems to be missing the point IMHO.. it's too wrapped up in word games and doesn't get down to the real brass tacks of reality :/

"everything that can be said, has been said, provided words do not lose their meaning"
- Alphaville

Philosophy and Theosophy to me is an absurd thing to study for more then ones own personal want to understand more about our existence for personal reasons. IDK, seems if you think/live that way you do, and gaining knowledge for reference and to build your own theories on can of course be beneficial, or entirely diverting from personal original thought with hope to gain public acceptance, and practical implementation.

but theories become commodities and feed and comfort the ego, even if questioning deep down their own validity. After so many decades or years of defending ideas, to swallow that pride and step out of denial about the corruption in their ideas or religion that existed looong before they were even taught, is to many worth being born for over and over again.

'they are better pleased the less they know their ways'

Wars will be fought between two sides, who both feel they are 100% correct......? Muslim and most of the Christian faiths would destroy everything to back their own learned beliefs and sense of group power. I can argue for both sides, it would be nice if humanity had the maturity to follow the age old, 'law of the land', and not continue to fumble around with peoples freedom and lives playing Jury Judge and Executioner with a detached hands off approach.

"they talk an awful lot but when it comes down to it they really know absolutely bugger all about reality itself"

I have a book of essays by Michel de Montaigne and he explains this perfectly, and emotionally, how sad it is that peole will sit and read and feel that they are experiencing, and learning when really they are doing not much more then confusing themselves more then they know, for longer then this life time.

there are a whole many many worlds out there.

to do what needs to be done here and wanted responsibly, in the material, so as to leave freely for the ethereal is the most solid fact of life, this place is the least existent, because soon enough it never will exist, or exist the same again.

_________
"The Taste of Goods or Evils Doth Greatly Depend on the Opinion We Have of Them"
M.Montaigne

"Men...are tormented by the opinions they have of things, and not by things themselves"
M.Montaigne

My greatest fear is what another can believe;
more then I fear what is unknown to me.